The supreme court reversed the appellate court's judgment with respect to its holding that the losing bidder stated a cause of action under the UCL and affirmed the appellate court's judgment with respect to its determination that the losing bidder stated a cause of action for the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage. The case was remanded to the appellate court for further proceedings.

The key point about Abood is that it fit naturally with this Court’s consistent teaching about the permissibility of regulating public employees’ speech. [***96]  The Court allows a government entity to regulate that expression in aid of managing its workforce to effectively provide public services. That is just what a government aims to do when it enforces a fair-share agreement. And so, the key point about today’s decision...

The court reversed and remanded.

The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing the district court's dismissal of the inmate's complaint as to the physician, both in his capacity as a treating physician and as medical director of the corrections department. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether the inmate stated a cause of action against the other corrections officials.

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Assuming respondent was not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the Court held that the District must permit respondent to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in his home. 5-4 Decision; 2 Dissents.

The court affirmed the sanctions order.

The district court's judgment was reversed as to the constitutionality of the § 441b restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment was affirmed as to the disclaimer and disclosure requirements, and the matter was remanded. Four justices joined the opinion in its entirety; 1 joined in all but the disclaimer/disclosure affirmance; 4 joined only as to that affirmance. 1 concurrence; 2 part concurrence...

The court affirmed the decision.

The court reversed the judgment of defendant trial court, which granted defendant airport owner's motion to compel discovery of plaintiffs' private associational information and medical histories. The court held that the discovery order violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because it was not justified by a compelling state interest and was not narrowly tailored. On remand, the discovery could not impinge...

The court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiff insured's beneficiary. When it was undisputed that defendant broker failed to advise the prospective insured about the conditional receipt option, which would have allowed the insured to get temporary coverage almost immediately for a small fee, defendant broker was negligent as a matter of law.

The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed, and the preliminary injunction was vacated to the extent it was challenged by the Navy. 6-3 decision; one opinion; one concurrence in part/dissent in part; one dissent.

The Fifth Circuit's decision was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 5-4 Decision; 1 opinion; 1 dissent.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and held that the exclusionary rule should be modified to allow the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant, even if the warrant was subsequently found to be defective.

The Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. 9-0 Decision; 2 Concurrences.

The judgment of the appellate court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceeding consistent with the court's opinion.

The court affirmed the trial court's sanction order.

Judgment affirmed; 5-4 decision in parts I, III, IV-B, and V; 1 concurrence; 2 dissents.

The Court reversed the decision of the court below, reinstating the affirmation of respondent's conviction and the denial of a writ of habeas corpus to respondent, on the grounds that the determination of voluntariness did not require proof of knowledge of a right to refuse as the sine qua non of an effective consent to a search.

The en banc panel affirmed the portion of the district court's judgment addressed to the trade secret misappropriation claims. However, it reversed the portion of the district court's judgment addressed to the issue of infringement.

Conviction affirmed and matter remanded.

A verdict and damage award for plaintiff employee in an age discrimination action was affirmed on the grounds that defendant employer's proffered reason for the discharge was pretextual and the result of an intent to discriminate. The court also affirmed the damage award because there was insufficient evidence to support awards of liquidated damages or front pay.

The judgment reversing the grant of defendant attorney and defendant law firm's motion to dismiss plaintiff assignees' suit for breach of contract was affirmed. Plaintiffs could survive the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action because their complaint and the supporting affidavit adequately pled that the instrument prepared by defendant attorney vested in plaintiffs a present right to settlement...

The Court reversed defendant's conviction.

Judgment reversed and case remanded. 6-3 decision; 2 concurrences; 1 dissent.

The court reversed the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and remanded the case for entry of judgment for defendant on plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional invasion of privacy claims. Defendant had not violated plaintiffs' privacy rights through its use of a drug testing program that was reasonably calculated to further defendant's legitimate interest in safeguarding intercollegiate...