Procedural Posture
In an action to recover money paid by plaintiff to the intestate for stock, defendant administrator appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that entered findings in favor of plaintiff and denied a new trial.
Overview
Plaintiff and the intestate made an agreement in writing, by which the intestate sold and promised to deliver to plaintiff shares of stock in a mining corporation then about to be formed in the state of New York. Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the stock at the date of the contract. The corporation was subsequently formed, but the issuance of its stock was enjoined at the suit of third parties, and the injunction was never dissolved. Later, the intestate died and plaintiff presented a proper demand to the administrator for the repayment of the money advanced by him as the purchase price on the stock. The administrator refused plaintiff's demand, so he commenced this action to recover the money. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and denied a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court found that the evidence very fully and clearly sustained the findings of the trial court as to the real nature of the contract, which was embodied in a series of letters written and received by the respective parties.
Outcome: corporate defense lawyer
In an action to recover money paid by plaintiff to the intestate for stock, the court affirmed a judgment of the trial court that entered findings in favor of plaintiff and denied a new trial.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff former employee appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) in favor of defendant former employer in the employee's action for wrongful termination, employment discrimination, and breach of contract.
Overview
In accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, the employee had a physician's recommendation to use marijuana for his chronic back pain. When the employer learned the employee had tested positive for marijuana during a preemployment drug test, it discharged him from the position that he had held for eight days. The court held that employers had legitimate interests in not employing persons who used illegal drugs. Nothing in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12900 et seq., precluded an employer from firing, or refusing to hire, a person who used an illegal drug. Because the possession and use of marijuana was illegal under federal law, a court had no legitimate authority to require an employer to accommodate an employee's use of marijuana, even if it was for medicinal purposes and thus legal under California law. Permitting employers to fire a person who exercised his statutory right under state law to use marijuana for medicinal purposes did not violate California policy created by the Compassionate Use Act, which said nothing about protecting the employment rights of persons who used marijuana for such purposes.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.