The case involved two hospitals challenging sales tax assessments by the State Board of Equalization on the transfer of their furnishings and equipment as part of selling their entire assets. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospitals, finding the transfers exempt as occasional sales under the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the equipment was used in medical services not requiring a seller's permit, the single sales were not part of a series requiring such a permit, and even under the Board's unitary business regulation an exception applied for service enterprises selling equipment used in their operations. The Board's attempt to tax the sales based on minimal unrelated taxable activities was rejected as inconsistent with the statute.
The case involved a minor plaintiff who developed permanent blindness after prolonged high-dose use of the prescription drug Diodoquin to treat acrodermatitis enteropathica; he sued the manufacturer G.D. Searle & Co. and his dermatologist, alleging inadequate warnings about the risk of optic nerve atrophy, negligence in developing and distributing the drug, and negligent prescribing. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, and the California Supreme Court affirmed. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown it was reasonably probable the trial court's modifications to his proposed jury instructions affected the verdict, and therefore did not reach the broader question of strict liability for prescription-drug side effects. The opinion discusses the manufacturer's duty to warn, FDA labeling requirements, and alternative methods of communicating risks to physicians, but ultimately rests on the lack of demonstrated prejudice from the instructional changes.
This case involved two neighboring commercial property owners in Vernon, California, where the plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive easement over a portion of the defendant's vacant land that their delivery trucks had used for turning and access since 1972. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had established a 25-foot-wide prescriptive easement through open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for over five years, and ordered the defendant to remove part of a new warehouse built on the contested area. The California Supreme Court affirmed the easement declaration and the removal order, holding that statutes validating prescriptive easements neither authorize nor require payment of the easement's fair market value to the servient owner, and that the easement holder should not bear relocation costs under these facts. The court rejected arguments for implied easements or easements by necessity based on the parties' negotiations and the layout of the properties.
In People v. Shaw, the defendant had pleaded guilty to robbery and received probation conditioned on completing an alcohol treatment program; his probation was revoked after he was arrested for a second robbery, though that charge was later dismissed at trial. The California Supreme Court considered the defendant's claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present alibi and mistaken-identity evidence from witnesses who could have supported his account of being elsewhere at the time of the alleged offense, and that the evidence at the revocation hearing was insufficient. The court held that the attorney’s failure to interview key witnesses or develop these defenses violated the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel, warranting relief on habeas corpus and reversal of the revocation. The opinion also discussed the broader practice of holding probation-revocation hearings before trial on the underlying charges.
The case involved a challenge by Triple E Produce Corporation to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board's certification of the United Farm Workers union as the exclusive bargaining representative for its employees following a 1975 representation election. The employer objected to the election based on statements by union organizers to workers that those who did not vote for the union would be replaced, arguing these created coercion and fear that affected the vote. The California Supreme Court held that the ALRB applied an incorrect standard by treating the statements as non-coercive propaganda, finding instead that an objective test applied and that the record showed the threats created an impermissible atmosphere of fear that invalidated the election and certification. The court therefore overturned the board's decision and the resulting bargaining order.
This case involved the prosecution seeking a writ of mandate to overturn a trial court's pretrial order suppressing evidence found during a warrantless search of an automobile trunk in a vehicle theft investigation. Police had probable cause to believe stolen parts from a pickup truck were in the trunk of a nearby Oldsmobile but conducted the search without a warrant or consent. The California Supreme Court held that the search was lawful under the traditional automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The court reasoned that when probable cause exists to search a vehicle, officers may search its trunk without additionally demonstrating exigent circumstances, reversing the trial court's contrary conclusion. The court therefore issued the requested writ directing the trial court to vacate its suppression order.
