Marcus Maurice Kaufman

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.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

procedure

This case concerned whether a notice of intention to commence a medical malpractice action against a public hospital under Code of Civil Procedure section 364 could trigger the notice and defense-waiver rules of the Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 910.8, 911, and 911.3). The court held that a public entity must treat such a notice—which alerts it to a claim for monetary damages and an impending lawsuit but does not substantially comply with claim presentation requirements—as a defective claim. This activates the entity's obligation to notify the claimant of any insufficiencies in content or timeliness, and failure to provide that notice waives related defenses. The decision rests on interpreting the statutes to fulfill the Act's goals of enabling investigation and settlement while allowing claimants to cure defects.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a public school teacher who objected to paying mandatory service fees to his local teachers' association and its state and national affiliates, arguing that the fees exceeded the costs of the union's representational duties and were used for activities like lobbying, electioneering, and member recruitment in violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of California held that the EERA restricts the use of objecting nonmembers' fees to the union's representational obligations only, barring most lobbying, electioneering, and recruiting expenses, while ruling that uses permitted by the EERA itself do not infringe on First Amendment rights. The court further determined that authorized affiliates may expend fees on representational activities, that the union bears the burden of proving which expenses are chargeable, and that involuntary payroll deductions for fees are authorized under the EERA. The decision rested on statutory construction of the EERA's provisions governing organizational security arrangements and a review of constitutional limitations on compelled speech and association.

labor & employmentfree speech

This case concerned whether a criminal defendant's motion for discovery of police officer personnel records under Evidence Code section 1043 requires an affidavit based on the affiant's personal knowledge. The defendant, charged with resisting arrest and exhibiting a knife, sought records of prior excessive force complaints against the arresting officers; his attorney's supporting declaration relied on information and belief drawn from the police report and client statements rather than firsthand knowledge. The municipal court found good cause for an in camera review and limited disclosure, rejecting the city's argument that personal knowledge was mandatory. The California Supreme Court held that section 1043 does not impose a personal-knowledge requirement, ruling that a declaration based on reasonable belief or inferences from the pending litigation is sufficient, consistent with the statute's text and legislative history.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an insurer, along with its retained attorneys and expert witness, could be sued for conspiracy to violate Insurance Code section 790.03(h)(5) by failing to attempt a prompt settlement of a medical malpractice claim after liability became reasonably clear. The plaintiff, who had obtained a large judgment against the insured doctor, alleged that the defendants withheld information and arranged for a misleading expert opinion to justify denying a policy-limits settlement offer. The trial court overruled the defendants' demurrers to the conspiracy claim, but the California Supreme Court directed that the demurrers be sustained. The court reasoned that the statutory duty applies only to persons engaged in the business of insurance, and under its prior decision in Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., agents and employees of the insurer—including retained attorneys and experts—cannot be held liable for conspiracy to breach that duty.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved defendant Robert M. Bloom, Jr., who was convicted of three counts of first degree murder for killing his father, stepmother, and eight-year-old stepsister, with multiple-murder special circumstances and firearm-use findings. After pleading not guilty, withdrawing an insanity plea, and representing himself at the penalty phase, Bloom was sentenced to death by the jury and trial court. On automatic appeal and related habeas petition, the California Supreme Court reviewed issues including self-representation, competency proceedings, guilt-phase evidence, and the reliability of the death judgment. The court affirmed the convictions and death sentence in full, concluding that the trial proceedings were constitutionally sound and that failure to present mitigating evidence did not render the penalty unreliable absent misleading instructions.

criminal law

The case involved Kenneth Derrel Williams, who was tried and convicted in Placer County Superior Court of rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and murder with special circumstances, resulting in a death sentence. Defendant had moved for a change of venue before and during jury selection, citing extensive pretrial publicity about the crimes and his family. The California Supreme Court reversed the convictions, ruling that the trial court prejudicially erred by denying the venue change because the local media coverage was pervasive and voir dire showed that a significant number of prospective jurors knew details of the case or had connections to the victim and her family. This decision followed the same reasoning applied in the separate proceeding for the defendant's brother, where a writ of mandate had compelled a venue change.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Bonillas, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary with a felony-murder special circumstance after breaking into a neighbor's home, killing the victim by strangulation and blunt force during a struggle, and was sentenced to death under California's 1978 death penalty law. The California Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal, focusing on issues including whether the jury made an express finding on the degree of murder under Penal Code section 1157 and the trial court's handling of post-verdict procedures. The court affirmed the convictions, the special circumstance finding, and the judgment in most respects, but vacated the death sentence and remanded the case for reconsideration of the automatic application to modify the death verdict under section 190.4(e) and for separate sentencing on the burglary count. The core reasoning centered on procedural requirements for jury findings and the mandatory independent review by the trial judge of aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing death.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eric W. Joyner, who was convicted in California of grand theft and robbery with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to four years in prison to run concurrently with prior Florida prison terms for unrelated offenses. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5 for time spent in Florida and California custody after a California hold was placed, all of which had already been credited against his Florida sentences. The California Supreme Court denied the credits, holding that such custody cannot be deemed attributable to the California proceedings unless the defendant demonstrates strict causation—that he would have been at liberty during the period but for a restraint related to the later sentence. The court interpreted the statute to require that credit be given only once for a single period of custody and that duplicative credits for concurrent sentences on unrelated offenses are available only on a showing of strict causation.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Calvin Coleman was convicted of the 1980 murder of Patricia Neidig at her rural Sonoma County home, along with related special circumstances of committing the murder to avoid arrest, during a robbery, and during a burglary; he was also convicted of multiple other felonies including assaults, rape, and robbery against additional victims. The California Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction and death sentence under the 1978 death penalty law, as well as the other convictions, but set aside the special circumstance finding that the murder was committed to avoid lawful arrest due to lack of substantial supporting evidence. The court further remanded for resentencing on the non-murder counts because the trial court failed to explain its imposition of a full consecutive term under Penal Code section 667.6(c) and relied on duplicative factors for consecutive sentences, upper terms, and enhancements. The opinion reviews guilt-phase evidence of the defendant's prior connection to the area, his actions on the day of the crimes, and the forensic details establishing the offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Toro, the defendant was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon after stabbing his half-brother. The jury convicted him of battery with serious bodily injury, a lesser related offense that was not necessarily included in the charged crimes, after receiving instructions on it without any objection from the defense at trial. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a defendant cannot be convicted of an uncharged, nonincluded offense without consent. The California Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the conviction, reasoning that submission of lesser related offenses enhances the reliability of the fact-finding process for both parties and that the absence of a timely objection at trial constitutes implied consent, barring a due process challenge on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Peter Edelbacher's appeal from a death judgment after his conviction for the first-degree murder of his estranged wife Lela, with special circumstance findings that the murder was for financial gain and committed while lying in wait, plus a conviction for solicitation to murder another person. The court affirmed the guilt findings and special circumstances, which were supported by evidence including the circumstances of the shooting, financial disputes over marital property and support, and defendant's incriminating statements to acquaintances. However, the court reversed the death penalty and remanded for a new penalty trial, holding that the prosecutor's arguments during the penalty phase may have misled the jury regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the scope of its discretion in determining the appropriate sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. McFarland, the defendant pleaded no contest to one count of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and two counts of felony drunk driving causing injury after a collision that killed one person and injured two others. The California Supreme Court addressed a conflict among appellate courts on whether Penal Code section 654 bars separate punishment for the manslaughter and drunk driving convictions arising from the same incident. The court held that section 654 does not prohibit separate punishment because the manslaughter statute is defined in terms of unlawful killing, so a single act can violate it multiple times when multiple victims are killed or injured, consistent with the principle allowing multiple punishment for violent acts harming several people. By contrast, the court noted that the drunk driving statute focuses on the single act of driving under the influence, limiting a defendant to one such conviction per incident under prior precedent. The judgment upholding separate punishments for manslaughter and one drunk driving count was affirmed, with remand for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether property owners whose land was damaged by flooding after an unintended breach in a flood control levee could recover in inverse condemnation from the Riverside County Flood Control District and the State of California without proving any unreasonable conduct by the defendants. The trial court ruled for the defendants after finding that the levee had operated within its design capacity at the time of the breach and that plaintiffs presented no evidence of unreasonable design, construction, operation, or maintenance. The California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in cases of unintended levee failure, inverse condemnation liability requires proof of unreasonable conduct by the public entity rather than imposing strict liability for damage caused by the breach alone.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether a six-month statute of limitations for suing on a mechanic’s lien release bond under Civil Code section 3144.5 bars recovery when a lien foreclosure action was already pending at the time the bond was recorded. Plaintiffs had timely filed their foreclosure action after recording a lien for unpaid landscaping work, and later added the surety as a defendant after the bond was posted; the trial court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claim against the surety as time-barred. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 3144.5’s limitations period applies only to actions commenced after the bond is recorded and does not terminate or require refiling of already-pending foreclosure suits in which the surety is joined. The court reached this conclusion through statutory interpretation, legislative history, and the principle that mechanic’s lien laws are remedial and to be liberally construed.

propertyprocedure