February 5, 2026
Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
The Rule of Findlay Grant et al. v. Chapman University is that a university's statements about class locations, campus facilities, and "face-to-face contact" requirements do not constitute sufficiently "specific" promises to create an enforceable implied contract for in-person education, under circumstances where the statements are general expectations rather than binding commitments and facilities descriptions contain express disclaimers.
2/4/26
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
The Rule of Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is that ICRAA authorizes consumers to recover the statutory sum of $10,000 as a remedy for a violation of their statutory rights, without any further showing of concrete injury or adverse employment decision, under circumstances where an employer fails to comply with any requirement of ICRAA's disclosure and consent provisions.
1/30/26
Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District (Yolo)
The Rule of Tavares v. Zipcar is that remote rental car companies exempt under Civil Code section 1939.37 owe no duty to assess whether renters appear impaired at the time of rental or to equip vehicles with impairment detection technology, under circumstances where the rental is conducted through a membership agreement allowing remote vehicle access without in-person employee interaction.