Legal Opinion
Rosemary Verdugo v. Target Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 11, 2012No. 10-57008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order; Concurrence by Judge GRABER; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.
ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, we request the California Supreme Court to decide the question of California law set forth in Part II of this order. This case is withdrawn from submission until further order of this court, and all further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme Court.
There is no controlling precedent resolving the question we set forth below. The answer will determine the outcome of the present appeal. Our phrasing of the question below is…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Ballard v. UribeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Verdugo v. Target Corp.California Supreme Court · 2014
- Rosemary Verdugo v. Target CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Verdugo v. Target Corp.California Supreme Court · 2014
- Verdugo v. Target Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014