Frank K. Richardson

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

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.

property

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentelections

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.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ronny William Mozingo's conviction for the first-degree murder and rape of his stepmother, with special circumstances found that led to a death sentence. On appeal and through a consolidated habeas petition, Mozingo claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate potential mental defenses. The court appointed a referee who found that counsel's inaction deprived the defendant of a potentially meritorious defense, particularly since the alibi was uncorroborated. Adopting the referee's findings after review, the court reversed the conviction and granted habeas relief, remanding for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) seeking reimbursement from third-party tortfeasor Phillip Glover for disability retirement benefits paid to an injured employee after she settled her personal injury claim against Glover without PERS’s knowledge or consent. The employee had been severely injured in a car accident caused by Glover, received benefits from PERS, and settled with Glover for his insurance policy limits shortly before the statute of limitations expired, executing a general release. PERS sued Glover under Labor Code section 3852 for partial reimbursement, but the trial court ruled for Glover, and the California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when only the employee knew of PERS’s potential claim and statutory notice obligations at the time of settlement, the failure to provide notice and obtain consent bars PERS from pursuing the third party and confines its remedy to an action against the employee.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned the City of San Diego's decision to raise the required contribution rate for firefighters to the city's actuarially based retirement system from 8.22 percent to 11.68 percent of salary, effective in 1978, based on updated actuarial assumptions that accounted for inflation's effect on future salaries. The firefighters' union sued to block the increase, arguing that the system required commensurate added benefits for any contribution hike and that statements in employee handbooks estopped the city from making the change without such benefits. The trial court upheld the system's authority for the increase but applied estoppel to prevent it for existing employees; the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the retirement plan permitted adjustments to contribution rates without matching benefit increases and that the handbooks contained no misrepresentations that would support estoppel. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney fees to the union.

labor & employment

In People v. Conner, defendant James Edmund Conner faced original charges of armed robbery, burglary, forgery, and related offenses prosecuted by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office; while in custody awaiting trial, he allegedly assaulted a deputy sheriff and fired shots that endangered Deputy District Attorney Braughton, leading to additional charges of assault on an officer, escape, and enhancements. The trial court denied recusal of the DA’s office for the original charges but granted it for the new escape-related charges, finding a conflict because Braughton was a witness and potential victim who had discussed the incident with colleagues in the office. The California Supreme Court affirmed under Penal Code section 1424, holding that recusal of the entire office was required when a conflict of interest is so grave as to render it unlikely the defendant would receive a fair trial. The court reasoned that Braughton’s involvement, his communications with about 10 of the 25 felony prosecutors, the seriousness of the threat, and the small office size created a substantial risk of actual or perceived bias affecting discretionary decisions such as plea offers or sentencing recommendations, supported by substantial evidence even without proof of specific prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether constitutional and statutory limits capping retirement benefits for pre-1967 state legislators at a $500 monthly salary base could be applied to members of the Legislators’ Retirement System, or whether doing so would unconstitutionally impair their vested pension rights under the contract clauses. The trial court ruled that the restrictions could not be applied and issued a writ requiring recalculation of benefits using current legislative salaries under sections 9359.1 and 9360.9. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the limits in article IV, section 4 and section 9359.11 were valid and applicable. The core reasoning was that the pension formula for these retirees had always been tied to the pre-1967 salary structure, later adjusted only for cost-of-living increases under section 9360.9, and that the 1966-1967 changes did not create a contractual right to higher benefits based on post-1967 salaries.

labor & employment

The case involved a retired Pasadena police officer, Donald Winslow, who had received a service-connected disability retirement in 1975 due to lung disease and who challenged the city's 1980 decision to reinstate him to a newly created desk officer position after medical review found he could perform those duties. The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Winslow's petition for a writ of mandate, upholding the retirement board's action. The court reasoned that the reinstatement did not constitute an unconstitutional change in policy impairing vested pension rights, as distinguished from the Newman precedent, because the city charter permitted recall to any equivalent position the employee could perform and substantial evidence supported the board's finding that Winslow's disability had ceased to prevent service in the available role. The board's monitoring authority and the lack of any penalty to Winslow's service credits further supported the decision.

labor & employment

In Norman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the case concerned whether an employee who voluntarily quit her California job to move to Washington and live with her nonmarital partner (whom she planned to marry in the future) was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. The California Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling and held that such a departure did not qualify as leaving work for "good cause," rendering the claimant ineligible for benefits. The court reasoned that good cause requires personal reasons so imperative and compelling as to render the voluntary leaving effectively involuntary, and that statutory provisions recognizing family unity or moves to accompany a spouse apply only to legal marital or family relationships, not to unmarried partners, consistent with the legislative scheme and the repeal of former section 1264.

labor & employmentfamily law

In People v. Jasper, the defendant appealed the revocation of his probation for a prior burglary conviction, arguing that the revocation hearing should have been postponed until after trial on a new burglary charge to avoid forcing him to choose between remaining silent (risking revocation) or testifying (providing pretrial discovery to the prosecution). The California Supreme Court upheld the revocation, reaffirming its prior decision in People v. Coleman that allows probation revocation hearings to precede related criminal trials. The court reasoned that Coleman's limited exclusionary rule, barring use of the probationer's revocation hearing testimony or its fruits at a subsequent trial, adequately protects against self-incrimination and unfair advantage without requiring postponement in every case. It noted that federal and other state authorities had not clearly established a constitutional mandate for delay, and Penal Code section 1203.2 permits revocation based on new offenses regardless of prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a joint venture formed by plaintiff Ted Leff, Henry Sender, and defendants William Gunter and associates to submit a bid for constructing and leasing an IRS Center in Fresno. After orally agreeing to participate with a two-thirds share for the defendants, the defendants withdrew from the venture but then used confidential project information to submit a competing bid through Russell & Associates, which secured the government contract on the Pilobos site. A jury found the defendants liable for unfair competition through breach of fiduciary duty and awarded Leff $416,666 in damages. The California Supreme Court affirmed the liability judgment, holding that the evidence supported the finding of a fiduciary breach in the joint venture context, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, ruling that the damages were sufficiently certain under Civil Code section 3287 to require such an award from the date they vested. The court remanded for calculation of the interest.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Chavers, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress a handgun found during a warrantless search of a car glove compartment and an opaque shaving kit inside it, following a traffic stop of suspects matching a recent armed robbery description. The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling and the resulting robbery conviction, holding that the search was lawful. Officers had probable cause based on visible items in the car matching the robbery (potato chips, beer cans, clothing) and the automobile exception permitted a search of the vehicle and its compartments without a warrant. The court further reasoned that the officer's inadvertent plain feel of the gun's outline through the kit allowed its warrantless opening and seizure.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case concerned a driver's challenge to the DMV's suspension of her license for six months under Vehicle Code section 13353, the implied consent law, after she was arrested for driving under the influence but pleaded guilty only to reckless driving and disputed the evidence that she had refused a blood alcohol test. The trial court upheld the suspension using the substantial evidence standard of review. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that courts must apply the independent judgment standard when reviewing DMV license suspension decisions because a driver's license constitutes a fundamental vested right whose revocation substantially affects the licensee's livelihood and daily life. The court relied on precedents such as Bixby v. Pierno and Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., which require independent judicial review of administrative decisions that impact such rights, and remanded for further proceedings under that standard.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a defendant, Dennis Stanworth, who was sentenced to life imprisonment under California's former Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) for murders and other crimes committed in the 1960s. After the adoption of the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) in 1977, the parole board applied the new guidelines to set his parole date, which the defendant challenged as violating ex post facto principles. The trial court granted habeas corpus relief, and the California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendant must receive parole consideration under both the ISL and DSL standards because the new law altered the standard of punishment to his potential disadvantage. The court reasoned that changes in how postconviction behavior and other factors are weighed under DSL could result in a different, possibly later, release date compared to the individualized rehabilitation focus of the ISL.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Neva Snyder's conviction for possession of a concealable firearm by a convicted felon under Penal Code section 12021, stemming from her 1973 conviction for sale of marijuana. At trial, the court excluded evidence that Snyder mistakenly believed her prior offense was a misdemeanor based on her attorney's advice and other circumstances, and it rejected jury instructions requiring knowledge of felony status as an element of the offense. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the offense requires only a prior felony conviction and possession of the firearm, with no need to prove the defendant's knowledge of her legal status as a felon. The court reasoned that any mistake about whether the prior conviction qualified as a felony under Penal Code section 17 was a mistake of law, which does not constitute a defense, as ignorance of the law is not an excuse and the statute demands only general intent.

criminal law

The case concerned constitutional challenges to Proposition 8, the Victims' Bill of Rights initiative adopted by California voters in the June 1982 primary election, which added multiple provisions to the state constitution and statutes aimed at protecting crime victims' rights in the criminal justice system. Petitioners, three taxpayers and voters, argued that the measure contained procedural defects in how it was submitted to voters and objected to the use of public funds for its implementation, but did not contest the merits of its substantive changes. The California Supreme Court upheld the initiative against these challenges, concluding that it complied with constitutional requirements for initiatives. The court's reasoning centered on the need to liberally construe the people's initiative power, resolve reasonable doubts in its favor, and limit review to fundamental, overarching objections rather than potential issues with specific provisions.

criminal lawelections