California Supreme Court — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
California Supreme Court — appointed by Culbert Levy Olson
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
California Supreme Court · 2001-07-11 · cited 2941×
This case is an antitrust action brought by a California consumer on behalf of retail buyers of CARB gasoline against major petroleum companies, alleging a conspiracy among competitors to restrict output and raise prices in violation of the Cartwright Act (and derivatively the unfair competition law). The defendants each moved for summary judgment, supported by declarations from company officers stating that capacity, production, and pricing decisions were made independently without collusion. After extensive discovery, the superior court granted the motions, the Court of Appeal reviewed the ruling, and the California Supreme Court granted review specifically to clarify the legal standards courts must apply when ruling on summary judgment motions in antitrust conspiracy cases and in civil actions generally, including the burdens of production and the treatment of evidence such as information exchanges and exchange agreements.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc.
California Supreme Court · 2001-04-30 · cited 113×
The case involved a conflict between California's statutory right of publicity, which allows successors of deceased celebrities to control commercial use of their name, voice, photograph, or likeness, and the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Comedy III Productions sued Gary Saderup for selling lithographs and T-shirts featuring reproductions of the Three Stooges without consent. The court held that Saderup's works were not protected by the First Amendment because they lacked significant creative elements that would transform them into something more than mere celebrity likenesses. The core reasoning established a balancing test weighing the right of publicity against free speech, under which reproductions receive no special exemption simply for being art, and the publicity right prevailed here as the items were unauthorized commercial merchandise.
free speechproperty
Galland v. City of Clovis
California Supreme Court · 2001-03-21 · cited 57×
The case Galland v. City of Clovis involved mobilehome park owners challenging a city's rent control ordinance, claiming that excessively low rent ceilings and burdensome administrative processes violated their constitutional due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The California Supreme Court held that a future rent adjustment, known as a Kavanau adjustment, could preclude a section 1983 damages claim if it adequately compensates for prior confiscatory rents, and remanded the case to the rent control agency to determine such an adjustment. The court further concluded that unreasonable costs imposed on landlords seeking rent increases could support a section 1983 claim only if they deliberately flouted established law or resulted in confiscation, requiring remand to the trial court for proper calculation of any damages. The opinion addresses the relationship between rent control remedies and federal civil rights actions.
propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
People v. Jones
California Supreme Court · 2001-03-15 · cited 117×
In People v. Jones, the defendant was convicted of multiple forcible sex offenses against one victim, along with enhancements for kidnapping and personal use of a deadly weapon; the trial court imposed multiple life terms under the one-strike law and weapon enhancements, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of California granted review to interpret Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (g), which requires a single life term for offenses against one victim on a single occasion, and to determine whether post-offense weapon use qualifies as use in the commission of the offenses under sections 12022.3 and 667.61. The court held that offenses occur on a single occasion if they share close temporal and spatial proximity, so the defendant's acts constituted one occasion warranting only one life term, and that weapon use after the sexual acts can support the enhancement if it increased the threat of harm by threatening or controlling the victim. It therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal on these sentencing issues.
criminal law
Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs
California Supreme Court · 2001-03-08 · cited 145×
This case involved a dispute over whether disability coverage under California's Cal-Vet home protection plan, a self-funded benefit program for veterans purchasing homes through the Department of Veterans Affairs, is subject to the mandatory provisions of the Insurance Code. The plaintiff, a veteran whose disability claim was denied based on a pre-existing condition under the plan's terms, contended that the coverage qualified as insurance regulated by the Insurance Code. The court decided that the coverage does not constitute insurance subject to the Insurance Code and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The core reasoning was that the plan operates as a specialized state benefits program under the Veterans’ Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1974, administered directly by the Department with no private insurer assuming liability, rendering the overlapping regulatory authority of the Insurance Code inapplicable and inconsistent with the legislative framework.
business & regulatory
People v. Morales
California Supreme Court · 2001-03-05 · cited 392×
The case involved defendant David Hans Morales, who was charged with illegal possession of phencyclidine (PCP) under Health and Safety Code section 11377(a), along with prior conviction allegations. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Morales was found under the influence of PCP near a van containing a vial of the substance, and the prosecutor argued in closing that the jury could infer possession from his state of intoxication. The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the prosecutor's summation constituted prejudicial misconduct. The court decided that the prosecutor's statements did not require reversal of the conviction. Its reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the evidence under the given jury instructions regarding possession, knowledge, and circumstantial evidence, concluding that the arguments did not misstate the law in a manner that prejudiced the defendant.
criminal law