In this case, a husband in a marital dissolution proceeding sued his wife's attorney, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and intentional tort after the attorney recommended a psychologist for custody and visitation evaluations whom she allegedly misrepresented as neutral and independent despite a preexisting relationship; the husband claimed this led to a biased report that harmed his visitation rights and reputation. The trial court dismissed the claims on demurrer, finding the statements protected by the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47(2). The Court of Appeal reversed as to the intentional tort claim, applying an "interest of justice" test that would allow the claim to proceed if the statements were made for improper personal objectives. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the full dismissal, holding that the litigation privilege is absolute in nature (except for malicious prosecution) and applies to all tort claims based on communications made in judicial proceedings, regardless of alleged improper motives, to further the policy of encouraging free access to the courts without fear of subsequent litigation.
The case involved defendant Robert Jackson Thompson's convictions for the 1981 first-degree murder of 12-year-old Benjamin Brenneman, forcible sodomy, lewd conduct with a child under 14, and felony child endangerment, with jury findings of two special circumstances for murder during sodomy and a lewd act. After the first jury deadlocked on penalty, a second jury returned a death verdict, and the court reviewed the case on automatic appeal under California's 1978 death penalty law. The court affirmed the convictions and penalty, upholding the jury's guilt and special circumstance determinations based on the evidence presented at trial and rejecting challenges to procedural matters such as jury instructions on note-taking and the timing of peremptory challenge objections.
The case concerned whether the mandatory renewal provision in Insurance Code section 1861.03(c), enacted by Proposition 103, prevented automobile insurers from sending nonrenewal notices to policyholders after they had applied to withdraw from the California market and surrendered their certificates of authority to the Insurance Commissioner. The Supreme Court of California held that the provision did not apply to such withdrawals, so the nonrenewal notices were effective. The court reasoned that the intent behind the mandatory renewal requirement, as interpreted in its prior Calfarm decision, combined with the language and history of the preexisting withdrawal statutes (Insurance Code sections 1070-1076), supported exempting insurers in the withdrawal process from the renewal obligation. It noted that withdrawing insurers must still discharge liabilities or arrange reinsurance before their applications are approved, allowing an orderly exit without forced renewals.
The case involves the conviction of Kenneth Burton Lang, Jr. for the first-degree murder and robbery of Thurman Anderson, along with firearm use enhancements and a special circumstance of murder during a robbery, leading to a death sentence under California's 1978 death penalty law. The defendant admitted to the killing but claimed self-defense, and the prosecution presented evidence of his possession and use of firearms before and after the crime, as well as his use of the victim's motor home. The California Supreme Court set aside the conviction for possession of a concealable firearm by a convicted felon but affirmed the remaining convictions and the death judgment, finding that any errors in the penalty phase did not warrant reversal.
The case involved Michael Wayne Hunter's automatic appeal from a judgment of death after his conviction for the first-degree murders of his father and stepmother, along with findings that he personally used a firearm and that multiple murders occurred as a special circumstance. The prosecution presented evidence including defendant's prior statements planning the killings, his use of a borrowed car and shotgun, witness sightings near the scene, and his post-crime admissions to friends. The California Supreme Court reviewed the guilt and penalty phases, found no reversible error, and affirmed the convictions and death sentence in full.
This case concerned whether attorneys representing executors or administrators in probate proceedings could recover fees from the estate for time spent establishing and defending their fee claims under Probate Code section 910. The California Supreme Court held that such compensation is authorized, reversing the lower courts' denial of the fee petitions. The court reasoned that allowing these "fees on fees" prevents dilution of attorneys' compensation through defending against objections, which would otherwise discourage attorneys from performing necessary services for estate administration.