August 9, 2013
On Monday moring, the Supreme Court will file opinions in two cases argued on the court’s late-May calendar.
Just in time for the start of the new school year, the court will answer these questions in American Nurses Assn. v. Torlakson: (1) Under California law, are designated school personnel who are not licensed nurses allowed to administer insulin to diabetic students according to treating physicians’ orders under a Section 504 Plan (29 U.S.C. section 794; 34 C.F.R. section 104.1 et seq.) or an Individualized Education Program (20 U.S.C. section 1414(d))? (2) If not, is California law preempted by federal law?
Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization raises the issue of how limitations on the taxation of intangible property (see Cal. Const., art. XIII, section 2; Rev. & Tax. Code sections 110, 212; Roehm v. County of Orange (1948) 32 Cal.2d 280) apply to the assessment of a power plant subject to annual assessment by the State Board of Equalization (Cal. Const., art. XIII, section 19), when the owner of the plant used emission reduction credits (see Health & Saf. Code, section 40709) to offset its emissions and obtain authorization to construct the plant.
The opinions can be viewed online Monday beginning at 10:00 a.m.