The California Attorney General’s Opinions is a collection of legal opinions that are published on an annual basis. It first appeared in 1989 and has expanded each year. It currently has 95 volumes, with advance sheets released monthly. LexisNexis provides convenience through advance sheets, eBooks, and CDs. Although these materials are nonrefundable, they may contain links to Lexis+. To access the content of the eBook, you will need a valid Lexis+ subscription.
CCPA requires businesses to disclose internally generated inferences about a consumer
The California Attorney General’s Office recently issued a ruling clarifying that businesses must disclose internally generated inferences about a person when responding to a request for information under the California Consumer Privacy Act. In his opinion, the CCPA defines an “inference” as any deduction derived from facts and evidence. Even simple data about a consumer can be used to create powerful inferences.
The OAG ruled that businesses do not need to disclose internally generated inferences if they do not use the data to make the inference. The OAG did not rule out the possibility that businesses are entitled to protect their trade secrets. The opinion also notes that there is a precedent that requires businesses to disclose internally generated inferences about a consumer. However, the case could ultimately go to court.
CPRA does not change the conclusions in a California attorney general opinion
There are several key reasons why CPRA does not change the conclusions of a California attorney’s general opinion. First, CPRA does not apply to the judicial branch of government. That is, it is not a “state agency” under the CPRA. Second, the judicial branch is not a “state agency” under the CPRA. So, the opinion of the California attorney general would not change its conclusion in this case.
Third, the CPRA does not apply to grand juries. Specifically, Article VI of the California Constitution does not include grand juries. Therefore, grand jury proceedings must remain secret. This ruling came in a case called McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court. Ultimately, the case was overturned on appeal. But the California attorney general’s office stated that the CPRA does not affect the conclusion of a PG’s opinion.
Interested parties may submit a memorandum of law
The Attorney General’s Office issues various types of legal opinions. Generally, they guide questions of statutory interpretation and are not binding on a court of law. However, there are some instances in which interested parties may request the office to issue a formal opinion. The following are some examples of types of opinions:
Attorney General’s Opinions address questions of state law, not questions of federal law, mixed fact and law, and legislative or executive policy. They are not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be used to settle difficult questions of law. In some instances, the Attorney General may recommend a declaratory statement under the Administrative Procedure Act. The opinions issued by the Attorney General may be useful for resolving a legal dispute but are not intended as legal advice.
Opinions are advisory only
While Attorney General’s Opinions are not binding in court, they do carry great weight. The California courts generally give great weight to the Attorney General’s opinions. However, it is important to note that these opinions are advisory only, which means they cannot be relied on to decide your case. In addition, they are not meant to substitute for legal counsel. The following are the most important factors to consider when using Attorney General’s Opinions in court.
An opinion issued by the Attorney General is an opinion issued by a public official to legislators and other state officials. While it is persuasive authority, it is not binding. Only public officials are required to follow the opinion of the Attorney General. A formal opinion, on the other hand, is not binding. It must be signed by the Attorney General and issued in the Report of the Attorney General. These opinions usually deal with a question of statewide concern.
The state of California is not a party defendant in a DSAR
There are several ways to file a DSAR against the State of California. You can find a sample form and instructions for a small claims case at the Court Clerk’s office or on the California Courts – Forms page. If you cannot find the form you need online, you can obtain one in person from the Court Clerk’s office. In some cases, a DSAR may be filed against the State of California.
The state of California has no duty to defend against problematic conduct
The duty to defend is an important principle in California law. The courts have consistently held that insurers must defend their insured against any claims of potentially covered conduct – even if the claims are not covered in any way. The duty to defend covers claims of third-party misconduct whether or not they are covered, but it doesn’t apply to all types of third-party liability claims. Under California law, an insurer is required to defend its insured against a lawsuit for all of its costs.
