| What is RSS feed? | About Us |
 |
 Search Score: 4/10
Source: news.yahoo.com --- 11 days ago
A stalled Sierra Nevada salvage-logging venture is sparking the Supreme Court's next major environmental showdown. ... Source: civilliberty.about.com --- 17 days ago
In 2004, a group of fertility doctors refused to treat a lesbian on the basis that their religious beliefs prohibit them from helping lesbians reproduce. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court... ... Source: www.latimes.com --- 16 days ago
Even if a governor objects, the state high Court says a convict's crime may not be enough to determine if an inmate would be a threat to the public. The California Supreme Court made it easier today for prison inmates to win parole over a governor's objections. ... Source: arstechnica.com --- 29 days ago
Employees in the US' most populous state will have greater mobility when it comes to employment, as the California Supreme Court rules that, with very narrow exceptions, noncompete clauses are invalid. Read More... ... Source: writ.findlaw.com --- 3 days ago
Can a doctor in California offer fertility services to the public, but refuse to provide them to lesbian patients? In North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court said no, rejecting a constitutional challenge to the state's broad public accommodations law. ... ... Source: www.prnewswire.com --- 19 days ago
... Source: religionblog.dallasnews.com --- 19 days ago
Here's the top of the AP version: SAN FRANCISCO - California's high Court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession. The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage. And the link . A bit more info at the jump. Here's how the opinion starts: Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic's physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation? Our answer is no. Here's what the state law said: "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." In searching for precedent, the California Court reaches for, among others, a famous federal case from SFlorida: Three years later, the Court reiterated that holding in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993) 508 U.S. 520, 531 (Lukumi), stating that "a law that is neutral and of general appli ...
Source: digg.com --- 16 days ago
A Los Angeles County medical marijuana case, which most agree would never have seen a courtroom in Mendocino County, has raised questions on whether any limits imposed by the legislature to the Compassionate Use Act is constitutional. Last Wednesday the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to hear the case of California vs Patrick Kelly. ... Source: www.worldontheweb.com --- 19 days ago
At issue in the case: Whether a pair of San Diego fertility doctors discriminated against a lesbian, refusing her in vitro fertilization because of her homosexuality. The Court said yes; the doctors say no — that they based their decision on whether or not the woman was married. Here are two different accounts of the case, [...] ... Source: www.statesman.com --- 15 days ago
Saw this post on the Wall Street Journal’s health blog: California Doctors Can’t Refuse Care to Gays on Religious Grounds . The case stems from a gay woman’s request for fertility treatment. Guadalupe Benitez said she was denied because she was gay. The doctors said it was because she was single. California Supreme Court Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote: “Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with [California’s] prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.” Read the entire opinion here . As blogger Jason Goldstein points out, there’s more at issue with this question. The federal government was recently reviewing the rights of doctors and pharmacists who do not prescribe certain kinds of birth control on religious grounds. The after-the-fact contraception Plan B is a particularly controversial issue. ... Source: www.mondaq.com --- 15 days ago
California's long-standing prohibition of non-compete agreements was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, Case No. S147190. The decision was a much-anticipated ruling on the Ninth Circuit's limited or "narrow-restraint" exception, which "only makes illegal those restraints which preclude one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business." ... Source: www.mondaq.com --- 15 days ago
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court has confirmed that restrictive agreements that limit an employee's ability to engage in a lawful profession are unenforceable in California unless given in connection with a sale or dissolution of a corporation, a partnership or a limited liability corporation. ... Source: www.mondaq.com --- 10 days ago
The California Supreme Court recently ruled in a 4-3 decision that a privately owned shopping mall could not restrict union members from peacefully handbilling on its property in connection with a labor dispute, even though the handbilling was designed to cause a consumer boycott of one of the mall's tenants. ... Source: www.lifesite.net --- 17 days ago
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski SAN FRANCISCO, August 19, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A lesbian woman in California has won a law suit in which she claims doctors at a fertility clinic discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. In a 7-0 decision yesterday, the California Supreme Court... ... Source: www.gaylesbiantimes.com --- 14 days ago
Oceanside woman says clinic’s decision was ‘painful’ (AP) – California’s highest Court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession. Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.” In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs p… Read More ... Source: jasonaclark.com --- 15 days ago
The California courts are at it again. The same California Supreme Court that created a “right” to homosexual “marriage” earlier this year has now ruled that the state may force healthcare professionals to provide services to homosexuals regardless of the whether or not providing those services violates the healthcare professional’s religious beliefs. California’s highest Court was [...] ... Source: www.sluniverse.com --- 18 days ago
---Quote--- (08-18) 11:01 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Doctors in California must treat gays and lesbians the same as any other patient, regardless of... ... Find more results for California Supreme Court on RSSMicro.com |
Copyright © 2008 RSSMicro.com
California’s highest Court has ruled unanimously that a common feature of employment contracts called a noncompete agreement is illegal under state law and has been since 1872. Basically, a noncompete says a company’s employees can’t work for or start a competing company, usually for a certain period of time. The rationale is that employees shouldn’t be [...] ...
While the nation was focused on the big presidential primaries on March 4, California was also Court-watching, as the California Supreme Court heard arguments in lawsuits seeking an end to discriminatory marriage laws in the Golden State. Lawyers for the parties seeking marriage equality argued that it’s unconstitutional to keep gays and lesbians from marrying a same-sex partner, while the opposing side countered that tradition and public opinion support continuing the current ban on same-sex marriage. The justices were very active in questioning both sides, and it’s hard to tell what they’re thinking, but to me it appeared that some of them, at least, were leaning toward ruling in favor of marriage equality for all California citizens. Their pointed inquiry into how same-sex marriage “undermines” heterosexual marriage certainly exposed the weakness in that particular bit of bigotry, and they also appeared to reject the notion that children always thrive when raised by biological parents of the opposite sex. (In fact, studies show that children of lesbians and gay men do just as well as kids with opposite-sex parents.) We’ll find out within 90 days what the justices are thinking -- that’s the time limit for the Court to rule. Lots more about the arguments and the issues in the San Francisco Chronicle , Los Angeles Times , and New York Times . And if you're up for nearly four hours of Court-watching, you can see the argument on the Calif ...