Frank Henry Kerrigan

The case involved Dr. Wesley Gardner Slocum, charged with grand theft and submitting false Medi-Cal claims by billing the state for unrendered services and misusing patient identification labels from his practice. Following a six-month trial, a jury convicted him on one count of grand theft and twenty-two counts of false claims, resulting in a state prison sentence after denial of various pretrial and trial motions. On appeal, Slocum raised issues including the informant's access to confidential attorney meetings, denial of mistrial motions after jurors learned of a prior unrelated charge, admission of seized evidence, and jury instructions on theft amounts. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that no Fourth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, the trial court's rulings on motions, evidence, and instructions were proper, and the charges were correctly pursued under Medi-Cal procedures.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved a production worker who suffered severe injuries when caught between a pipe and an oven door due to failures in a chain-drag conveyor system and oven mechanisms at a pipe manufacturing plant. The worker, after receiving workers' compensation, sued the oven supplier, conveyor supplier, and general contractor on theories of negligence, warranty, and strict products liability, with the employer's compensation carrier intervening to recover benefits. A jury awarded $350,000 against all defendants, with special findings on employer negligence and lack of assumption of risk. The court affirmed the judgment against the contractor based on sufficient evidence of negligence, affirmed the grant of new trials to the suppliers due to issues with their products, and denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case concerned founding shareholders of Documentor Sciences Corporation (DSC) who sued Electronic Memories and Magnetics Corporation (EMM) and related defendants over a 1969 financing agreement and subsequent asset sale that allegedly deprived the shareholders of ownership interests and rights under the agreement. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claims were derivative in nature and could only be brought on behalf of the corporation rather than individually by the plaintiffs. On appeal, the court reviewed the complaint's allegations under the standards applicable to judgments on the pleadings, assuming the facts pled to be true, and analyzed whether each cause of action asserted personal rights or corporate claims. The appellate court addressed issues including the character of the claims, third-party beneficiary status under the contract, and prematurity defenses, ultimately evaluating whether dismissal was proper based on those distinctions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Jarchow v. Transamerica Title Insurance, two married couples purchased property for commercial development after receiving a preliminary title report and title insurance policy from Transamerica that omitted any reference to a recorded easement for ingress and egress held by an adjacent landowner. The buyers sued the neighbor to quiet title and the title company for breach of contract and negligence after the company refused to address the easement; a trial court awarded damages for attorney's fees and loss of use, and a jury later awarded $200,000 in general damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that a title insurer may be liable for compensatory damages, including emotional distress, when it negligently fails to discover or disclose a recorded encumbrance and unjustifiably refuses to take action to clear the title upon notification. The court reasoned that the insurer's conduct breached its duties under the policy and California law on good faith and fair dealing, even absent fraud or malice.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Earl Hale sued Universal Marketing Enterprises Co. and its president for breach of contract and fraud after paying $25,000 for 39 vending machines that were never delivered, and also brought claims for negligent misrepresentation against Welch Foods and Hormel based on Hormel's regional manager recommending Universal and Welch permitting use of its name in ads. The trial court granted summary judgment to Welch and Hormel, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that no material misrepresentations occurred because the statements by Hormel's manager were either true facts or non-actionable opinions, there was no close connection between the defendants' conduct and Hale's loss, and neither company was in the business of supplying information or had a duty to investigate Universal. The court further noted that imposing liability would place an unreasonable burden on national distributors to vet every potential customer.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a date picking machine's hydraulic cylinder that failed after repair by Dyna-Lift, causing injuries to two workers and damage to the machine owned by Codekas Brothers. Multiple lawsuits were consolidated and tried on theories including negligence and strict liability in tort, resulting in verdicts for the plaintiffs. Dyna-Lift appealed, arguing that strict liability does not apply to a mere repairer. The court affirmed the judgments, reasoning that since the case was tried on multiple theories with general verdicts returned and no special verdicts, it must be presumed that the jury's verdicts were supported by the negligence theory, as the limited record on appeal does not show error on its face.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Frank Mardian, who was charged with possession of PCP for sale after a search of a residence turned up the substance; the search was based on a warrant obtained from information provided by a child witness who observed a suitcase containing white powder. After a jury trial, Mardian was convicted of the lesser included offense of simple possession. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search warrant was validly issued, that sufficient evidence supported the verdict including testimony from the child informant and corroboration of accomplice statements, and that other procedural challenges such as motions to suppress and for acquittal lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nevin v. Salk, buyers of a veterinary hospital defaulted after paying part of the $200,000 purchase price secured by a deed of trust and part by an unsecured note; they sued the sellers for fraud to rescind the sale and recover payments, while the sellers foreclosed and cross-claimed for the remaining balance on the unsecured note plus damages for converted personal property. The trial court found no fraud, held that the anti-deficiency statute barred recovery on the unsecured note, awarded the sellers the value of converted property and attorney fees for defending the main action, and Nevin appealed the fee award while Salk cross-appealed the denial of recovery on the note. The appellate court affirmed the fee award as proper for prevailing on the fraud claim but reversed on the note, concluding that the anti-deficiency statute did not apply to the unsecured obligation in this single integrated transaction and that fees were recoverable under the note's provisions.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether defendant Harold Jackson could be retried on a conspiracy charge after his alleged coconspirators, Jones and Finch, were acquitted in a separate trial following severance. The trial court dismissed the conspiracy count, and the appellate court reviewed that dismissal via writ. The court held that collateral estoppel barred the prosecution from retrying the conspiracy issue against Jackson, reasoning that the same facts and evidence would be presented, the coconspirators' acquittal had already resolved the existence of an agreement, and estoppel promoted judicial economy while avoiding inconsistent verdicts in conspiracy prosecutions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a county and state action against Rath Packing Company seeking to enjoin alleged short-weight bacon sales at retail and to impose civil penalties for false advertising and unfair competition under California law. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government based on inspection declarations showing underweight packages. The appellate court reversed, holding that factual disputes existed regarding whether Rath's products complied with federal standards under the Wholesome Meat Act, the accuracy of state weighing methods, and the extent of federal preemption, all of which required resolution at trial rather than on summary judgment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved charges against the Mayor and Planning Commissioner of Westminster for attempting to extort $10,000 from a farmer in exchange for influence over a county board's decision on extending an agricultural lease on county-owned land. The defendants were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit grand theft and attempted grand theft but acquitted of the bribery-related counts. On appeal, the court addressed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the corroboration required for theft by false pretenses and the inferences supporting intent to commit theft, ultimately upholding the convictions based on the surrounding circumstances and acts showing the defendants' scheme to induce payment through false representations of political influence.

criminal law

This case involved a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by the widow and minor child of an Edison Company employee who died from a ruptured congenital cerebral aneurysm after experiencing partial leg paralysis while working late one night as a district superintendent. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board had denied benefits based on an independent medical examiner's report, but the court annulled that decision and remanded for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the employee's years of overtime, administrative pressures, and resulting hypertension were industrially caused and directly contributed to the aneurysm rupture, as confirmed by the examiner's testimony linking tension, elevated blood pressure, and aneurysm bursting amid conflicting medical opinions.

labor & employment

This case was a dental malpractice lawsuit brought by a patient against her Garden Grove dentist, alleging that improper tooth preparation for a bridge caused abscesses and required additional root canal work and a new bridge. The trial court excluded expert testimony from two Beverly Hills dentists on grounds of differing locality and specialty, then granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the experts were competent to testify given their relevant experience and knowledge of dental standards, and that the record contained sufficient evidence of duty, breach, and causation to present the case to a jury.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case arose from a traffic accident in which plaintiff Downing's car collided with defendant Barrett's truck-trailer as the truck prepared to turn right, leading to mutual claims for personal injuries. A jury determined that neither party was entitled to recover. The appellate court reversed the judgment, reasoning that defense counsel's improper cross-examination about the plaintiff's prior kidney issues from an unrelated accident introduced prejudicial evidence of accident-proneness in a close case, despite the lack of relevance, and that this error likely influenced the verdict against the plaintiff.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a pedestrian struck by a backing Southern Pacific freight train at night in a median divider on a busy street in Riverside, resulting in the amputation of his legs. The plaintiff sued the railroad for negligence and willful misconduct by the train crew, and the jury returned a $175,000 verdict in his favor. The railroad appealed, claiming errors in the jury instructions on willful misconduct and that contributory negligence barred recovery as a matter of law. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that the crew knew or should have known of pedestrian use of the tracks yet failed to provide adequate warnings such as sounding the air whistle or properly using lights, which supported submitting willful misconduct to the jury and rendered contributory negligence inapplicable as a defense.

torts & liability

In Greenberg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, a pharmacist filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after suffering a heart attack at his job, alleging that work-related stress and physical demands aggravated his preexisting arteriosclerosis and caused the injury. A trial referee awarded benefits based on medical evidence linking the employment to the heart attack, but the Appeals Board reversed and denied compensation. The Court of Appeals reviewed the full record and annulled the Board's decision, concluding that the independent medical examiner's testimony established substantial evidence of work causation. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its determination that the injury arose out of employment.

labor & employment

This case involved two attorneys, Murphy and Benware, who were convicted by a jury of five felony counts of offering and selling shares of California Caduceus Company stock in violation of the conditions of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Corporations. The sales were made to unqualified buyers, including a trenching contractor, building contractor, teacher, postal clerk, and airline pilot, none of whom met the permit's requirements that purchasers be medical doctors, dentists, pharmacists, or attorneys with a specified net worth. The trial court granted probation, imposed fines and suspended jail sentences, and reduced the offenses to misdemeanors. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgments, holding that the evidence conclusively showed knowing violations of the permit, that defenses such as good faith or reliance on official acts were not supported, and that claimed trial errors regarding continuances, instructions, and jury issues did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a tenant who was injured when a handrail on the back stairs of a rented house broke, causing him to fall; he sued the landlord for damages, alleging negligence in maintaining the premises. The trial court instructed the jury under the traditional rule that a landlord is not liable for injuries from dangerous conditions existing when the tenant took possession, absent fraud or a duty to repair, and the jury found for the landlord. The tenant appealed, arguing the instructions failed to reflect the duty of ordinary care under Civil Code section 1714. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that Rowland v. Christian applies the statutory standard of ordinary care in the management of property to landlords, with no public policy exception for out-of-possession owners, and that possession and control are factors in the negligence analysis but do not create immunity. The court concluded the jury should have been instructed on the general duty to avoid unreasonable risks of harm.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a dispute over real estate commissions in the probate sale of a large apartment complex from the Estate of Baldwin M. Baldwin. The co-executrices initially accepted a bid from licensed broker Frank E. Lembi (doing business as Skyline Realty), but questions arose because the acceptance form listed the unlicensed entity Skyline Realty, Inc.; after competitive bidding at the confirmation hearing, the property sold to higher bidders represented by Seeley Company and J.R. McGonagle, Inc. The trial court confirmed the sale and allocated a total $171,750 commission, awarding $76,500 to Lembi individually and the balance to the other brokers. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Lembi was entitled to a commission as the licensed broker and that the probate court's allocation under Probate Code sections 761 and 785 was reasonable based on the bids and customary fee practices.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff injured in two separate car accidents two months apart who sued both drivers in a single action. She settled with the first driver for $50,000 via a covenant not to sue and later obtained a $35,000 jury verdict against the second driver. The trial court denied the second driver's motion to offset the verdict by the settlement amount, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that Code of Civil Procedure section 877's pro tanto reduction provision applies only to settlements for the same tort by joint tortfeasors, not separate torts causing distinct injuries, so there was no double recovery to prevent.

torts & liabilityprocedure