logout

Store Research

LIS News and Notes -- March

March 1, 2010

Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.

The “I” in Briefs:

Interesting:  On February 18, 2010, the California Supreme Court decision in McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, ____ Cal. Rptr. 3 ____, 2010 WL 547321 (Cal.), 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2030, reviewed legislative history materials when it held that Labor Code section 233, which permits an employee to use accrued paid sick leave to care for ill relatives [“kin care” statute], does not apply to paid sick leave policies that provide for an uncapped number of compensated days off.  The supreme court stated:  "Although the plain language of the statute is clear, an examination of section 233 's legislative history confirms that the statute was not intended to broadly apply to all types of sick leave policies. Instead, the statute applies only to those policies in which employers provide “accrued increments of compensated leave.” (§ 233, subd. (b)(4).) The Legislature understood that this was a limiting definition; indeed, in describing the bill's purpose, the Legislative Counsel explained that “[t]his bill would require an employer who provides sick leave, as defined, for employees to permit an employee to use ... accrued sick leave” to care for ill relatives. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 109 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.), italics added.) The legislative history is replete with references to limiting the types of sick leave to which the statute is aimed; the phrase “sick leave, as defined” is oft repeated in analyses of the bill. (See, e.g., Legis. Counsel's Dig ., Assem. Bill No. 109 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 21, 1999; Assem. Com. on Appropriations, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 109 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) for hearing Apr. 28, 1999, p. 4; Assem. Com. on Labor and Employment, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 109 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) for hearing Apr. 7, 1999, p. 1 [bill “[d]efines ‘sick leave’ to mean accrued increments of compensated leave”].)"  In its conclusion, the supreme court noted:  “Interpreting the statute to exclude policies like defendants' does not run afoul of the legislative intent.”

Inspiring:  At the age of 79, Alice Thomas will be the oldest graduate at McGeorge Law School (affiliated with the University of Pacific) history!  The SACRAMENTO BEE published a story on Feb. 23, 2010 on Ms. Thomas, noting that she will take either “the California or the Nevada bar exam this summer and, with any luck, begins life as a rookie lawyer at age 80.”  She already has a job at a Reno law firm, where she will work on legal issues involving the elderly.  Asked why she wanted to pursue a legal education, Ms. Thomas answered:  “When you quit learning something, you might as well crawl into a coffin and pull the dirt in after you.”  She graduates this coming May from McGeorge – Congratulations!

International:  Switzerland has recently amended its Constitution to protect the “dignity” of plant life, then enacted a law recognizing animals such as canaries, guinea pigs and gold fish as “social animals” that must never be kept alone, enacted another law recognizing the rights for all animals, and now has a referendum to decide whether domesticated creatures should have the right to be represented by lawyers in court.  According to the SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER’s online report:  “If approved every canton in Switzerland will be obliged to appoint a lawyer to act for pets as well as farm animals and defend them from abuse.”  (Feb. 6, 2010)

Recent Court Cites to LIS:

***  In the 4th District case of Page v. Miracosta Community College Dist. (180 Cal.App.4th 471 (2009)), the court observed that:  “We are not prevented from considering the legislative materials submitted in connection with Page’s motion for summary judgment, and we take judicial notice of certain additional material relevant to legislative intent provided by Page’s counsel from the Legislative Intent Service. . . .”

***  The Second District Court of Appeal decision in Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., (171 Cal.App.4th 1 (2009)) set forth the following:  “. . . The bill was introduced at the request of the California Trucking Association, with the goal of eliminating markets for stolen property, in order to substantially reduce the incentive to hijack cargo from common carriers. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1068 (1972 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 26, 1972.)” FN12  ["FN12. The document in question does not on its face indicate its source as the Senate Judiciary Committee. Such identification, however, was confirmed to this court by Legislative Intent Service, Inc."]

Save $$ on Legislative History Research:

Referring new contacts to us may result in a 10% discount for your next legislative history research request.  Beginning in January, if any new contact tells us that you referred them to LIS, we will email a 10% discount to you for each referral.

Tell us about your pro bono project.  You may be able to order customized research at a 20% discount.

LIS’ Online Store Research offers legislative histories for a reduced rate of $300 per bill.   Go to legintent.com to learn more!

Recovering your fees for LIS research is possible if your position prevails.  (Van de Kamp v. Gumbiner, 221 CA3rd 1260 (1990)).  LIS has been cited in over 60 court opinions.  See: http://www.legintent.com

Those clients who responded to our January/2010 Survey received their 25% discount for one custom research order which they can use anytime in 2010.

Our free State Bar-approved self-study exam qualifies for 1.0 MCLE credit and is available online 24/7.  Need 1.0 hour of MCLE?  Simply go to:  http://www.legintent.com/mclemain.php