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

This case concerned the 1981 murders, rapes, and sodomies of two young women in Long Beach, California, for which defendant Hernandez was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder with rape and sodomy special circumstances, two counts of forcible rape, and two counts of forcible sodomy, resulting in a death sentence. The California Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal from the guilt and penalty phases. It affirmed the convictions and death sentence in all respects except that it vacated one of the multiple-murder special circumstances as duplicative. The core reasoning rested on review of the trial evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing factors, finding no prejudicial error in the remaining proceedings or penalty determination.

criminal law

This case involved Officer John Williams, who was discharged from the Los Angeles Police Department after answering questions during an internal investigation into arrest practices, without receiving the advisements required under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Williams sought reinstatement via writ of mandate, arguing that the lack of proper advisements entitled him to the same relief granted to his partner who had refused to answer. The trial court ordered reinstatement and excluded his statements from further proceedings, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because Williams suffered no prejudice from the violation and reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy under the circumstances.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case involved a dispute among defendants in a construction defect lawsuit over whether a good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 bars nonsettling tortfeasors from pursuing total equitable indemnity claims against the settling defendant. The California Supreme Court held that such claims are barred by the statute, consistent with the majority of prior Court of Appeal decisions. The court reasoned that the legislative history and purposes of the provision—to encourage voluntary settlements—would be undermined if total indemnity claims could proceed after a good faith determination. It further explained that any potential unfairness to nonsettling defendants could be addressed through the trial court's good faith review of the proposed settlement.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved multiple defendants charged under Penal Code section 647(d) with loitering in public toilets for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting lewd or unlawful acts, who argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face and sought dismissal of the charges. The municipal court overruled their demurrers, the superior court initially granted some relief based on a conflicting appellate decision but later faced review, and the Court of Appeal found the statute constitutional before the California Supreme Court granted review. The court upheld section 647(d), concluding that it satisfies due process by providing adequate notice of prohibited conduct to a person of ordinary intelligence and by clearly defining the location (public toilets) and the specific intent required. The reasoning drew on federal and state precedents requiring reasonable certainty in criminal statutes, comparisons to similar narrowly tailored loitering laws upheld in other states, and the statute's focus on a particular setting prone to such activity without leaving enforcement to arbitrary discretion.

criminal law

This case involved criminal charges filed in 1981 against three Yurok Indians of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation for violating California Fish and Game Code provisions that prohibit the sale or possession for sale of fish caught with gill nets in the Klamath River on the reservation. After a magistrate dismissed the charges for lack of state jurisdiction and a superior court reinstated them, the defendants sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal, which held that the prosecutions could proceed despite the Supreme Court's intervening 1984 decision in People v. McCovey. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, concluding that the comprehensive federal regulation of Indian fishing rights on the reservation preempts state criminal prosecutions for on-reservation fishing and related sales by reservation Indians. The core reasoning was that McCovey directly controlled and barred the state actions, with no valid basis shown to distinguish it or to allow state enforcement alongside the federal scheme.

criminal lawfederal powerenvironment

In People v. Kurtzman, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing a man in a park following a confrontation involving his schoolmates and a local gang. He appealed on the ground that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury during deliberations that it must unanimously agree on a murder verdict before considering the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. The California Supreme Court held that this instruction misapplied its prior decision in Stone v. Superior Court, which prohibits only the return of a verdict on a lesser included offense before acquittal on the greater offense and does not bar jurors from considering lesser offenses during deliberations. The court found the trial court's comments erroneous but concluded they did not prejudice the verdict given the sequence of instructions and deliberations in the case, and therefore affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of rape, assault, and kidnapping after an incident in which he assaulted and sexually assaulted the victim following a dispute over their relationship and a court hearing on restraining orders. The trial court imposed an additional three-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667.8 for kidnapping for the purpose of rape, even though that enhancement was not alleged in the information, not proven at trial, and was first raised in the probation report. The court held that the enhancement could not be imposed, concluding that a pleading and proof requirement must be implied both as a matter of statutory interpretation of the Penal Code provisions referring to additional terms and as a matter of due process to provide the defendant with notice. The core reasoning focused on the need for formal allegations and jury findings on such enhancements to ensure fairness, distinguishing this from cases where the enhancement had been properly charged.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of provisions in California's misdemeanor pretrial diversion statutes, particularly Penal Code section 1001.2(b) granting local district attorneys authority to approve or disapprove diversion programs, and a San Francisco program rule that rendered defendants ineligible for diversion if a wobbler offense like grand theft had originally been charged as a felony. Petitioner Jennifer Davis, charged with prostitution and grand theft (later reduced to a misdemeanor), was denied diversion under the local rule and challenged it as conflicting with statutes, violating separation of powers, and infringing equal protection. The Court of Appeal had struck down both the local rule and the statewide DA approval provision as unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory scheme and local rule were valid, as the DA's role was limited to program approval rather than case-by-case decisions, did not improperly delegate legislative power or encroach on judicial authority, and aligned with the Legislature's intent to involve prosecutors in designing diversion programs.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Jerry Thomas Bunyard, who was convicted by jury of the first-degree murders of his pregnant wife Elaine Bunyard and her full-term fetus, with a special circumstance finding of multiple murders, leading to a death sentence under California's 1978 death penalty law. The California Supreme Court affirmed the guilt verdicts and special circumstance finding, concluding there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant hired a childhood friend to kill his wife, supported by the accomplice's testimony and extensive corroboration including prior offers to others, witness observations, and phone records. The court reversed the penalty judgment, however, based on its prior ruling in People v. Ramos requiring reversal for certain instructional errors in death penalty cases. The opinion details the facts of the planned murder staged to appear as a suicide and the trial court's review of the evidence confirming the defendant's intent and hiring of the killer.

criminal law

This case involved a tenured teacher, Nancy Burman, whom the Fontana Unified School District sought to dismiss after she falsely called in sick to attend a space shuttle landing and lied to investigators about her actions. A commission on professional competence found cause for discipline based only on dishonesty but determined that dismissal was not warranted due to mitigating factors like her clean record and the isolated nature of the misconduct. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the commission lacked discretion and must order dismissal whenever any statutory ground existed, but the court reversed that decision. It held that under Education Code section 44944, the commission may conclude dismissal is unwarranted even if some discipline is justified, interpreting the statute to preserve the commission's role in assessing the appropriate sanction while respecting the district's initial choice.

labor & employment

This case involved the 1981 rape and murder of Ginger Fleischli, for which defendant Thomas Martin Thompson was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and forcible rape with findings that he personally used a knife and that the murder occurred during commission of rape as a special circumstance. The jury imposed a death sentence at the penalty phase, and the California Supreme Court reviewed the matter on automatic appeal. The court affirmed the judgment in full, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions, special circumstance, and sentence, including forensic links to the defendant and the jury's findings on intent to kill.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the application of Proposition 51, a 1986 voter initiative that modified California's joint and several liability rule by limiting a tortfeasor's responsibility for noneconomic damages to its proportionate share of fault, to a personal injury action arising from a 1980 accident that was already pending at the time of the election. The California Supreme Court held that the measure is facially constitutional, as it does not violate due process or equal protection guarantees under state or federal law. The court further determined that Proposition 51 does not apply retroactively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date, relying on the principle that statutes operate prospectively unless the enacting body clearly expresses a contrary intent, which was absent from the initiative's text and voter materials.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a minor who was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601(b) for truancy and later held in contempt for violating a probation order to attend school regularly. The juvenile court ordered the minor confined in a secure facility for 48 hours during nonschool hours as a sanction. The California Supreme Court held that juvenile courts retain the inherent authority to impose such secure confinement on status offenders like truants when they are found in contempt of valid court orders, despite statutory limitations on confining status offenders in secure facilities under sections 601(b) and 207. The court reasoned that the contempt power exists independently and is expressly recognized in section 213, and to align with legislative intent, courts must make specific findings on the necessity of confinement before ordering it.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

An oil industry association and several companies operating intercounty pipelines sued the State Board of Equalization to block it from requiring them to provide information about the underlying lands and rights of way. The trial court and Court of Appeal granted relief, holding that the Board lacked authority to assess those interests and therefore had no need for the data. The California Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the constitutional bar against courts enjoining the assessment or collection of taxes (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 32) deprived the lower courts of jurisdiction to grant the requested prepayment relief, even when the challenge was framed as limited to an information demand. The Court emphasized that taxpayers must generally pay any tax and seek a refund rather than obtain judicial intervention beforehand.

taxespropertyprocedure