Styne v. Stevens
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAXTER, J.
Sections 1700 to 1700.47 of the Labor Code (hereafter sometimes the Talent Agencies Act, or Act) 1 regulate “ ‘[t]alent agenc[ies]’ ” (§ 1700.4, subd. (a))—persons or corporations that procure professional “employment or engagements” (ibid.) for creative or performing “artists” (ibid.) in the entertainment media, including theater, movies, radio, and television (id., subd. (b)). One must have a license to act as a talent agency (§ 1700.5), and any contract of an unlicensed person for talent agency services is illegal and void ab initio. All “cases of controversy arising under…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Beach v. Ocwen Federal BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Rojo v. KligerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Johnson v. City of Loma LindaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Preston v. FerrerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Sharon S. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.