(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county appeals board erred in denying a hotel's request for a property tax refund. The hotel contended that the property valuation was incorrect. Reversed and remanded to the board for a new hearing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a property owner could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to recover tax overpayments. Affirmed a dismissal, in a case involving the determination of the real property's base-year value, a core metric for assessing property taxes in California.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county tax assessor incorrectly determined the value, for property tax purposes, of a concessionaire's lease at San Francisco International Airport.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the California State Board of Equalization violated clearly established law by participating in law enforcement's execution of a search warrant at the business premises of a man with whom he had a recent altercation. Affirmed the denial of his motion seeking qualified immunity in this lawsuit alleging civil rights and tort claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners were not disqualified from taking a tax break. California has a special tax provision benefitting homeowners over 55 years of age when they relocate to a replacement dwelling in the same county. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a business owner's lawsuit accusing a certified public accountant of professional negligence. Held that the statute of limitations did not bar this suit concerning alleged erroneous tax advice about how to structure a business deal. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when trial counsel failed to challenge his competency to waive counsel. Defendant’s due process right was not violated by state trial court’s refusal to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated by being shackled and restrained during trial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. District court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification met the predominance requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s proposed damages model was consistent with his theory of liability, where cost-of-repair damages could be used in claims arising from a defective hydraulic clutch system.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a challenge to a N.Y. Judiciary Law section 470, which requires nonresident attorneys to maintain an 'office for the transaction of law business' within New York State in order to practice law in that state's courts, the District Court's judgment declaring section 470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, is reversed where the law does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it was enacted not for a protectionist purpose to favor New York resident attorneys but, rather, to provide a means whereby nonresidents could establish a physical presence in the state akin to that of residents, thereby resolving a service concern while allowing nonresidents to practice law in the state's courts.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an environmental action, challenging defendant city's finding that a project was exempt from formal environmental review, the trial court's grant of mandatory relief to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is reversed where: 1) such relief is limited to default, default judgments, and dismissal; and 2) the trial court's grant of judgment to defendant after plaintiff counsel failed to prepare and lodge the administrative record as stipulated does not fall within either category.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to determine whether attorney work conduct privilege attaches to documents created by an attorney employee during their employment with an employer law firm, the lower court's judgment is vacated where the privilege attaches to the firm, rather than the employee.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the appeal of a judge convicted of 21 counts of public-corruption-related offenses, finding that subsequent decisions narrowing the interpretation of an 'official act' within the meaning of the federal bribery statute did not result in a plain error in the district court's instructions at trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an ethics case, the bankruptcy court's order to vacate a default judgment against the debtor after finding that plaintiffs' attorney, Max Folkenflik, intentionally deceived the court in omitting to inform it of a relevant settlement agreement is affirmed where Folkenflik's misconduct constituted a fraud on the court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case after his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled motion hearing is reversed for abuse of discretion where there was no suggestion of intentional failure to appear, no prior neglect by counsel to appear, the district court gave no notice that failure to appear would result in dismissal with prejudice, and plaintiff's claims would be left without a single merits determination.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing and remanding a claim of wrongful foreclosure in a case arising out of a contentious set of circumstances in which an attorney initiated foreclosure proceedings against a former client who filed a prior action alleging legal malpractice and other wrongdoing, characterizing the loan securing the property as usurious because prior demurrers did not bar the action and did not contravene the rule against splitting a cause of action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating a district court judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and affirming the denial of other forms of relief challenging the conviction and death sentence for first degree murder because although there were representation issues relating to sentencing the deficiencies were not prejudicial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify another party's counsel in longstanding litigation over groundwater rights. Stressed the movant's long delay in seeking disqualification, in this case where counsel allegedly had a conflict of interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $950 sanction imposed on a deputy public defender for violating a reciprocal discovery order by failing to disclose statements taken from a witness. Concluded that there was no discovery violation under the circumstances here.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a defamation action as it related to out-of-state defendants because Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants excepting defamation actions does not violate the plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights in a case where a media publisher reported on the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing their former Netherlands employer of a kickback operation involving Qaddafi and quoted the employer's statements about him, but reversing and remanding a decision that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim as it related to the employer's statements that he had repeatedly tried to extort money from them to determine whether the implication was indeed defamatory.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the defense and its denial of plaintiff motions to reopen discovery and for relief from judgment in an action challenging a jail's policy prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail to inmates because the ban related to legitimate penological objectives and arguments supporting the plaintiff's appeals had been abandoned.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded that a cable television operator unlawfully refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, on interlocutory appeal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an organization may not proceed with its defamation action alleging reputational harm from an article published in an American Bar Association law journal. The author's statements were non-actionable expressions of opinion. Affirmed a dismissal.