Edward A. Panelli

This case concerned whether a timber harvesting plan approved by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in 1988 for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation had to be set aside after the Board of Forestry later adopted permanent regulations protecting the northern spotted owl. The Court of Appeal had directed the department to vacate its approval so the plan could be updated or shown exempt due to substantial liabilities. The Supreme Court held that the timber operations, which were stayed by court order, qualified as proposed operations under the permanent rules and thus must follow one of the specified owl-protection procedures. However, the Forest Practice Act allows the operator to comply by resubmitting the plan, filing an amendment, or notifying the department of a minor deviation, without requiring the department to vacate the original approval. The judgment directing vacation of the approval was therefore reversed.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an 11-year-old minor charged in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with receiving stolen property and assault after incidents involving a bicycle and shooting glass. The central issue was the meaning of the "clear proof" standard in Penal Code section 26, which presumes children under 14 are incapable of committing crimes unless they knew the wrongfulness of their acts at the time. The California Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the minor appreciated the wrongfulness of the conduct, affirming the wardship adjudication based on a psychiatrist's report. The court reasoned from the 1872 statutory language and historical usage that "clear proof" denoted a standard equivalent to clear and convincing evidence, distinct from proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and determined this satisfied due process in the juvenile context.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

This case concerns the University of California's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in relocating its School of Pharmacy biomedical research facilities to a site in the Laurel Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. The dispute centers on whether the Regents were required to recirculate the final environmental impact report (EIR) for additional public comment due to new information about potential noise impacts from the project. The Supreme Court of California held that recirculation is mandated only when added information deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on substantial adverse environmental effects or feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that the project proponents have declined to implement. The Court further determined that decisions not to recirculate must be supported by substantial evidence and concluded that such evidence supported the Regents' decision not to recirculate the EIR in this instance, reversing the Court of Appeal's judgment.

environmentprocedure

The case involved Charles Hunter, who sued his former employer Up-Right, Inc. after his 1987 termination, claiming breach of an implied contract not to terminate without good cause as well as fraud based on alleged misrepresentations about the reasons for his dismissal. The California Supreme Court held that its prior decision in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. precludes tort recovery for fraud or deceit when the misrepresentation is made merely to effectuate an employment termination. The court reasoned that the employment relationship is fundamentally contractual, so contract damages are the ordinary remedy for wrongful termination absent a public-policy violation; tort damages require proof of all fraud elements with respect to a misrepresentation entirely separate from the termination itself. The record did not support such a separate fraud claim, so the judgment awarding tort damages was reversed.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Operations Committee of the Orange County Employees Retirement System Board, an advisory body composed of four board members (less than a quorum), was subject to the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Freedom Newspapers sought access to a committee meeting on travel policy changes, but the committee denied entry, leading to a petition for writ of mandate. The California Supreme Court held that the committee was not a "legislative body" under Government Code section 54952.3 and thus exempt from the Act's open meeting rules. The court reasoned that the statute explicitly excludes advisory committees made up solely of less than a quorum of the governing body, as these groups only make recommendations without any decision-making authority.

procedurefree speech

The case involved the City of San Diego's eminent domain action to condemn two commercial parcels owned by the defendants for a road-widening project. The defendants also owned a nearby trailer park on separate but contiguous lots and sought severance damages for alleged injury to those remaining parcels, arguing they could be combined with the taken land for future commercial development as a single integrated unit. The trial court denied the claim, finding no present unity of use between the properties. The California Supreme Court held that separate legal parcels under common ownership may be treated as one larger parcel for severance damages purposes when the owner shows a reasonable probability that the lots will be available for development or use as an integrated economic unit in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court remanded the case to allow the owners an opportunity to make that showing before proving any actual damages.

property

This case arose after Ann M. was raped at her job in a photo store located in a strip mall shopping center; she sued the center's owners for negligence, claiming they failed to provide adequate security such as guards to address risks from loitering transients in common areas. The California Supreme Court ruled that the owners owed no duty to provide security guards under the facts presented. The core reasoning centered on foreseeability, noting the absence of any prior violent crimes on the premises known to the owners, combined with the high cost and burden of hiring guards, which outweighed imposing such an obligation without evidence of similar prior incidents.

torts & liabilityproperty

In People v. Tenner, the defendant pleaded guilty to sale of cocaine and received an eight-year sentence that included a one-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5(b) based on a prior felony conviction for which he had served a prison term. The prosecution offered only an abstract of judgment and commitment form from the prior case, without a full prison packet, to prove completion of that term; the Court of Appeal struck the enhancement for lack of sufficient evidence, but the Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the documents, together with the unrebutted presumption under Evidence Code section 664 that official duties are regularly performed, constitute sufficient proof that the defendant completed the prior prison term as required by section 667.5. The decision resolves a conflict among appellate courts and disapproves contrary precedent.

criminal law

The case involved Montrose Chemical Corporation seeking declaratory relief to establish that its insurers under comprehensive general liability policies owed a duty to defend it in an underlying federal CERCLA action alleging environmental contamination and property damage from DDT manufacturing operations, as well as a related cross-complaint. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment, concluding that the insurers had a duty to defend because the allegations created a potential for coverage. The court's reasoning was that extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine whether a defense duty exists or is defeated, that summary adjudication of such duties follows ordinary procedural standards, and that the policies' coverage for property damage caused by an occurrence supported a defense obligation under the standard from Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs who purchased Maxicare securities between 1985 and 1988 and alleged that defendants made misrepresentations about the company's financial prospects in prospectuses, SEC filings, and other public statements, inflating the securities' price. Plaintiffs sued for deceit and negligent misrepresentation under California Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710 but conceded they had not actually read or heard the misrepresentations, instead relying on the integrity of the market. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers without leave to amend after plaintiffs failed to plead actual reliance. The California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for deceit without alleging actual reliance on the misrepresentations, rejecting the fraud-on-the-market theory as a substitute for that element under state tort law. The court reasoned that the common-law elements of deceit require a showing that the plaintiff actually relied on the false statements.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In People v. Clark, the defendant was convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder and rape of 15-year-old Rosie Grover, with true findings on special circumstance allegations that the murder occurred during the rape, involved intent to inflict bodily injury, and used a deadly weapon, resulting in a death penalty sentence. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full after an automatic appeal. The court's reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence from the guilt and penalty phases, including witness testimony, physical evidence, and the defendant's statements, finding no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings or penalty determination that warranted reversal.

criminal law

This case involves a newspaper's request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for access to a county sheriff's records of disciplinary proceedings against two deputies following a raid that injured a civilian. The sheriff refused disclosure, citing exemptions for law enforcement investigatory files under Government Code section 6254(f) and other provisions. The superior court ordered partial disclosure after in-camera review, but the Court of Appeal vacated the order and set out its own criteria for review. The California Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal correctly vacated the order but erred in defining the exemption's scope, and remanded for further proceedings applying the proper interpretation of section 6254(f), which generally exempts such files while allowing limited court oversight for disclosure of non-exempt information.

criminal lawprocedure

In this juvenile dependency case, the Kern County Department of Human Services filed petitions alleging that two children were at risk due to inadequate living conditions provided by their mother, leading to their removal, foster placement, and provision of reunification services. After an 18-month review hearing found insufficient progress and terminated services, the court scheduled a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, where the mother sought to have the children returned to her based on changed circumstances. The California Supreme Court held that section 366.26 does not permit consideration of reunification at that hearing, as its placement options are limited to adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care, but determined that due process is satisfied because parents may petition for modification under section 388 based on new evidence. The Court affirmed the lower court's appointment of guardians and termination of dependency jurisdiction, emphasizing that the statutory scheme balances child safety with parental rights through available procedural avenues.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a due process challenge to California statutes governing juvenile dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 et seq., specifically provisions allowing a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan (including termination of parental rights) after findings of detriment by a preponderance of the evidence. The petitioner, whose child had been declared a dependent and placed in foster care, argued that termination required clear and convincing evidence at that stage, citing Santosky v. Kramer. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding the scheme constitutional because it requires multiple prior hearings with clear and convincing evidence standards for removal, jurisdiction, and reunification failures, creating cumulative protections that satisfy due process before the final permanency determination. The court distinguished the process from standalone termination proceedings by noting the integrated sequence of findings and reviews mandated by the 1982 and 1987 legislative reforms aligning with federal law.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute over who was the natural mother of a child born under a gestational surrogacy agreement, in which a zygote formed from the gametes of a married couple was implanted in and carried to term by another woman. The California Supreme Court ruled that the genetic parents were the child's natural parents under the Uniform Parentage Act, that the surrogacy contract was enforceable, and that this result did not violate the Constitution or public policy. The court reasoned that the Act bases parentage determinations on genetics where possible and that the parties' intent to create a parent-child relationship through the agreement resolved any conflict between genetic and gestational claims.

family lawcivil rights

The case concerned whether a juvenile facing wardship charges for resisting arrest and assaulting police officers could obtain discovery of the outcomes of prior disciplinary investigations into those officers based on citizen complaints of excessive force. The trial court had ordered limited disclosure of investigation results after in camera review, the City of San Jose sought to block disclosure of those results, and the California Supreme Court granted review to clarify the scope of Evidence Code section 1045. The court held that the juvenile was entitled to the requested discovery. It reasoned that the Pitchess statutes balance officer confidentiality against a defendant's right to relevant information, Evidence Code section 1045(a) expressly permits access to records of complaints and resulting discipline when relevant, and section 1045(b)(2) excludes only investigating officers' conclusions—not final determinations of whether complaints were founded or the discipline imposed. The holding applies the same discovery rules to juvenile wardship proceedings as to adult criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an insurance company's duty to defend a teacher under an educator's liability policy in a lawsuit brought by a student alleging both sexual molestation and separate non-sexual harassing conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no duty to defend based on the teacher's criminal conviction for molestation. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the duty to defend exists if the complaint potentially seeks covered damages, and here unresolved factual issues remained regarding misconduct separable from the excluded sexual acts. The core reasoning centered on the broad scope of the duty to defend under policy terms and Insurance Code section 533, which bars coverage only for willful acts but does not eliminate potential indemnity for negligent or non-intentional conduct.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawprocedure

This case involved University of California students challenging a mandatory activities fee that funded student organizations engaged in political and ideological activities. The court upheld the Regents' authority to impose the fee under their constitutional powers of self-governance. However, it ruled that the funding system violated students' rights to free speech and association by compelling them to subsidize causes they oppose, requiring an appropriate remedy such as refunds or opt-outs for dissenting students. The decision emphasized that while students could continue to engage in such activities voluntarily, the state could not make support for them compulsory.

free speechcivil rights

In Brown v. Poway Unified School District, a self-employed contractor sued a public school district after slipping on a slice of lunch meat in a hallway, alleging a dangerous condition under Government Code section 835. The trial court granted summary judgment for the district because no evidence showed that an employee created the hazard or that the district had notice of it. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permitted an inference of employee negligence. The California Supreme Court reversed again, ruling that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the presence of lunch meat on the floor was not an accident that ordinarily occurs only through negligence by the district's employees, especially given that non-employees had access to the area and no evidence linked the condition to any employee act or omission.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether title insurance companies could be taxed under California's insurance tax on claims paid by underwritten title companies pursuant to their underwriting agreements. The State Board of Equalization assessed taxes on those payments, treating them as income to the insurers, but the insurers paid the assessments and sued for refunds. The California Supreme Court held that the insurers could not be taxed on the claims payments because they did not constitute income, as the underwritten title companies had assumed the risk of those payments under arm's-length agreements. The court also ruled that the Board failed to properly raise its alternative defense that the insurers should have been taxed on the full premiums paid by insureds to the underwritten companies. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

taxesbusiness & regulatory