Legal Opinion

Troester v. Starbucks Corporation

California Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 2018No. S234969PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLiu, J.

**1116 *834 Upon a request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548 ), we agreed to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680 , 692, 66 S.Ct. 1187 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 , and *835 Lindow v. United States (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057 , 1063, apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197 ?

The de minimis doctrine is an application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex , which means "[t]he law…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
  3. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals BaseballCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
  3. Alexia Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  4. Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
  5. Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020

55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API