eBriefs June 3, 2019

MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2019


Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Constitutional Law

A plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show his speech involved a matter of public concern where he was able to provide a general timeline, identify the roles of his interlocutors and describe his motivations for the discussions; the plaintiff’s decision to speak privately rather than publicly is not determinative of whether his speech is protected. A reasonable official would know that a public employee’s speech on a matter of public concern is protected if the speech is not made pursuant to his official job duties, even if the testimony itself addresses matters of employment.

Greisen v. Hanken; filed May 31, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-35472


Election Law

A state law requiring up to 1 percent of voters eligible to participate in Arizona’s primary to sign a nominating petition for a Libertarian candidate to earn a place on the primary ballot imposed a minimal burden on the Libertarian Party’s right to access the primary ballot and reasonably furthered Arizona’s regulatory interest in preventing voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, and frivolous candidacies; the requirement also did not impermissibly infringe upon the party’s right to free association or violate equal protection.

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Hobbs; filed May 31, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-16491


California Court of Appeal

Criminal Law and Procedure

The plain language of Penal Code §1473.7(d) establishes that a moving party is entitled to a hearing; the hearing can be held without the moving party if counsel is present and the court finds good cause as to why the moving party cannot be present; if the moving party is indigent and cannot attend the hearing because he is in federal custody awaiting deportation, counsel should be appointed.

People v. Fryhaat; Fourth District, Div. Two; filed May 31, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2569


Criminal Law and Procedure

Second degree murder liability is proportional to the culpability of an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

People v. Gentile; Fourth District, Div. Two; filed May 30, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2574


Healthcare Law

Health and Safety Code §1799.110(c)’s expert qualification requirement applies only to testimony on the applicable standard of care.

Stokes v. Baker; Second District, Div. Three; filed May 30, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2579