John Arguelles

The case involved defendant Constantino Carrera, who was charged with the first-degree murders and robbery of two motel managers along with special circumstances of felony murder-robbery and multiple murders. The jury convicted him on both murder counts and the robbery count, found the special circumstances true, and fixed the penalty at death. On automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, the convictions and death sentence were affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence, including witness testimony, physical evidence, and defendant's statements, was sufficient to support the verdicts under theories of direct liability and felony murder, and that trial errors did not require reversal.

criminal law

In Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., mothers brought claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a psychiatric clinic, its owners, and a therapist after the therapist, who was treating both the mothers and their minor sons for family emotional issues, sexually molested the boys. The California Supreme Court ruled that the mothers could state valid claims because the therapist owed them a direct duty of care. The core reasoning was that the therapist's treatment of the mother-son relationship made it reasonably foreseeable that molestation of the sons would cause the mothers serious emotional harm, and the therapist breached that duty by committing the acts while providing therapy.

torts & liabilityfamily lawhealthcare

This case involved a junior high school student who was allegedly sexually molested by his math teacher during an extracurricular work-experience program that included sessions at the teacher's apartment. The plaintiffs sued the Oakland Unified School District, seeking to hold it vicariously liable for the teacher's intentional acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior, while also raising claims of direct negligence by the district. The California Supreme Court held that the district could not be held vicariously liable because the teacher's misconduct fell outside the scope of his employment. The court reasoned that the sexual assault, though enabled by the teacher's position of authority, was not a foreseeable risk of the job duties authorized by the district. The opinion also addressed procedural issues under the California Tort Claims Act regarding the timeliness of the claim filing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved three adult sisters, one with a minor child, who attempted to rent space in a private California mobilehome park but were denied under the park's longstanding rule requiring all new residents to be at least 25 years old. The plaintiffs sued for declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief, claiming violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 798.76 of the Mobilehome Residency Law, and various constitutional provisions. The California Supreme Court held that the 25-or-older rule was valid under California law, reversing the Court of Appeal and concluding that section 798.76 permits private parks to adopt and enforce such age restrictions without confining them to senior-citizen housing. The court reasoned that the statute's text expressly authorizes rules excluding minors, that the Unruh Act does not override this authorization, and that the park owner's common-law property rights support the rule, while noting that new federal legislation would affect future enforcement but not the prior conduct at issue.

civil rightspropertyfamily lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved attorney Daniel James Conway, who was involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California in January 1988 under Business and Professions Code section 6007(c) based on misconduct tied to a severe cocaine addiction that posed a substantial threat of harm to clients and the public. No formal disciplinary charges had yet been filed, but multiple client complaints were under investigation, and the referee found nine instances of misconduct established, along with a high likelihood of continued harm. Conway challenged the enrollment on due process grounds and argued the order was not justified given his claimed cessation of drug use. The California Supreme Court upheld the order, concluding that the procedures satisfied due process by providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard while allowing flexible, expedited action in cases of substantial threat, and that the evidence supported the required findings of harm, risk of recurrence, and a balance favoring enrollment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a malicious prosecution lawsuit brought by Sheldon Appel Co. against the law firm Albert & Oliker, stemming from the firm's representation of clients in an earlier action seeking a declaration of rights and an equitable lien on property sold to Sheldon Appel, along with recording a lis pendens that was later expunged. The trial court allowed the malicious prosecution claim to reach a jury, which found for Sheldon Appel, but the California Supreme Court reversed. The court held that whether a prior action was brought without probable cause is an objective legal question of whether the action was tenable, to be decided by the court based on undisputed facts, rather than by a jury or based on the adequacy of the attorney's research. Because the prior lien claim was objectively tenable under the facts and relevant precedents, probable cause existed as a matter of law, defeating the malicious prosecution action regardless of any subjective factors.

torts & liabilityprocedure