Mathew Tobriner

The case concerned a landlord's policy of refusing to rent any apartments in a complex to families with minor children and seeking to evict such a family. The California Supreme Court ruled that the policy violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court explained that the Act bars arbitrary class-based discrimination by business establishments, extending beyond the specifically listed categories such as race or religion to include families with children, and that landlords may regulate individual conduct but may not exclude entire classes to avoid perceived group characteristics.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved defendant Marcelino Ramos, who was convicted of two counts of robbery, one count of first-degree murder, and one count of attempted murder arising from a 1979 armed robbery and shooting at a Taco Bell restaurant in Santa Ana, California. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery, triggering a penalty phase trial under the 1978 Briggs Initiative death penalty law, after which the jury returned a verdict of death. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the guilt convictions but reversed the death judgment. The core reasoning was that the statute's required "Briggs Instruction" to the penalty jury regarding the Governor's power to commute a sentence of life without parole violated due process because it was misleading and constituted a half-truth that could improperly influence the jury's decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned California's implied consent law (Vehicle Code section 13353), which mandates a six-month driver's license suspension for individuals lawfully arrested for drunk driving who refuse to submit to one of three chemical tests after being informed of their rights. Plaintiff Ernesto Hernandez, arrested on New Year's Eve 1977 after failing field sobriety tests, refused all tests and challenged the statute's constitutionality, arguing that the right to drive is a fundamental right under the California Constitution requiring strict scrutiny and that less restrictive alternatives should apply. The Supreme Court of California upheld the law, holding that driving is not a fundamental constitutional right akin to free speech or religion and is subject to broad legislative regulation under the state's police power. The court reasoned that the statute reasonably relates to highway safety and that no authority supported applying strict scrutiny or second-guessing the Legislature's policy choices in this area.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant in a California criminal prosecution has a right under the state constitution to the assistance of counsel at a preindictment lineup. The Supreme Court of California held that the right extends to preindictment lineups, reversing the defendant's robbery conviction because he was denied counsel at such a lineup where a witness identified him, and remanding for a determination whether the identification had an independent untainted basis; all other convictions were affirmed. The court reasoned that the well-recognized dangers of unreliable eyewitness identification and improper suggestion at lineups apply equally before and after indictment, so the presence of counsel to observe irregularities and assist cross-examination is required in both settings under the California Constitution, even though federal law limits the right to postindictment lineups.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Highland Ranch, an agricultural employer, challenging an order by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) that found the company committed unfair labor practices by failing to provide information or bargain with the United Farm Workers union after the union's apparent victory in a representation election but before formal certification. The ALRB had relied on federal precedents under the National Labor Relations Act holding that employers act at their peril by making unilateral changes during election challenges. Highland argued that a provision in the state Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Labor Code section 1153, subdivision (f)) barred bargaining with an uncertified union under any circumstances. The California Supreme Court upheld the unfair labor practice finding on narrower grounds, concluding that Highland could entertain no reasonable doubt about the union's imminent certification, which was a purely ministerial act, and thus could not invoke the statute to avoid its bargaining obligation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant David Leslie Murtishaw, who admitted shooting four college students in the Mojave Desert in 1978, killing three and injuring one, after which a jury convicted him of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder, found the multiple-murder special circumstance, and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on automatic appeal, holding that substantial evidence supported a finding of premeditated murder, that various trial errors (including incomplete jury instructions on malice and certain prosecutorial comments) were not prejudicial given the strength of the evidence, and that the defendant had waived Miranda and self-incrimination claims. The court further reasoned that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness at the penalty phase was improperly admitted but did not require reversal, while announcing prospective rules on jury discovery and unreasonable self-defense instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Fleming, the defendant pled guilty to selling cocaine after a Santa Barbara County magistrate issued a search warrant for his Los Angeles County home, which was executed and yielded incriminating evidence; he appealed the denial of his motion to quash the warrant. The California Supreme Court held that the magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the out-of-county warrant because the underlying crime occurred in Santa Barbara County and related to a prosecution there, and that probable cause supported the warrant based on statements from participants corroborated by independent evidence and police observations. The court reasoned that statewide peace officer authority under Penal Code section 830.1 permitted the investigation and that the affidavits provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable magistrate to believe evidence of the sales would be found at the defendant's residence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants Scott and Meredith convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, where the key evidence was the location of the victim's wallet found in a trash can behind Scott's residence. Scott had disclosed to his attorney that he took and partially burned the wallet, leading the defense investigator to retrieve it; the prosecution then introduced the investigator's testimony about the wallet's location to support the conspiracy theory against Scott. The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect an investigator's observation of physical evidence's location if the defense's removal of the evidence prevented the prosecution from making the same observation. The reasoning balanced the policy of encouraging open attorney-client communication against the need to avoid shielding discoverable evidence solely because the defense accessed it first, allowing the testimony in this instance because the wallet's relocation frustrated prosecution access.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved petitioners seeking to overturn a trial court order that denied their motion to expunge a lis pendens recorded in an underlying action for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell real property. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court's denial of the motion. The court reasoned that under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.1, the party opposing expungement bears the burden to show the action was filed for a proper purpose and in good faith, rather than to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The plaintiff's verified declaration established a prima facie case supporting those statutory requirements, providing substantial evidence for the trial court's decision.

propertyprocedure

This case involves efforts by plaintiff Shelley Mandel to enforce a final 1973 court judgment awarding her $25,000 in attorney's fees against state agencies and officials, which the defendants had not paid despite the judgment becoming final after appeals. The trial court ordered the State Controller to pay the award from funds already appropriated in the 1978-1979 Budget Act for the Department of Health Services' operating expenses. The California Supreme Court affirmed this order, holding that it did not violate separation of powers principles because it directed payment from existing appropriations rather than compelling new legislative action. The court reasoned that the broad language of the budget appropriation covered such fees, that the legislature could not exclude this specific award through case-by-case readjudication of a final judgment, and that the legislature retains authority to limit expenditures through generally applicable measures.

procedurecivil rights

In Martinez v. Superior Court, petitioner Antonio Martinez faced charges in Placer County of murder, robbery, and attempted robbery with special circumstances and weapon enhancements, and sought a change of venue due to extensive pretrial publicity. The trial court denied the motion, but the California Supreme Court granted a writ of mandate compelling the change. The majority's reasoning focused on the combination of prolonged media coverage (including coverage of a codefendant's separate trial), the relatively small size of Placer County, and the gravity of the capital charges, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood that an impartial jury could not be seated. The court applied the standard from prior cases that a venue change is required when pretrial publicity creates such a likelihood, resolving doubts in favor of the defendant before trial. A dissent argued that the publicity was not inflammatory, the community was of average size, and any bias could be addressed through voir dire.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned provisions in California's 1978-1980 Budget Acts that funded medical care for indigent women choosing childbirth under Medi-Cal but restricted funding for abortions except in limited circumstances. Plaintiffs challenged these limits as violating state constitutional protections for privacy, due process, and equal protection by discriminating against the exercise of procreative choice. The California Supreme Court held the restrictions unconstitutional, ruling that once the state provides a general medical benefits program, it cannot selectively deny benefits to those exercising a fundamental right in a disfavored manner without a compelling justification. The court applied strict scrutiny under the state constitution, distinguishing the U.S. Supreme Court's contrary analysis in Harris v. McRae, and found no compelling state interest supported the discriminatory scheme.

abortionhealthcarecivil rights

This case concerned whether a grower using a farm labor contractor could be held liable under California's Agricultural Labor Relations Act for the contractor's coercive conduct toward workers that interfered with their rights during a union certification election campaign. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board ruled the grower responsible for the contractor's actions as an unfair labor practice, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed. The court held that under the ALRA, modeled on the NLRA, an employer may be liable for coercive acts that employees could reasonably view as taken on the employer's behalf or reflecting its policy, even without direct authorization, and that this standard applies equally to labor contractors as to supervisors. The decision rejected a broader strict-liability rule for all contractor misconduct but found the grower's responsibility established on the facts.

labor & employment

The case involved a constitutional challenge to California's State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA) of 1977, which granted state employees collective bargaining and negotiating rights similar to those in the private sector. Petitioners contended that SEERA conflicted with the merit-based civil service system mandated by article VII of the California Constitution and encroached on the exclusive powers of the State Personnel Board. The California Supreme Court rejected the facial challenge and upheld SEERA, reasoning that the statute explicitly preserved the merit principle, that neither article VII nor its history assigned salary-setting authority to the Personnel Board, and that the Public Employment Relations Board's jurisdiction over unfair practices did not inherently conflict with the Personnel Board's disciplinary review role. The court emphasized that SEERA was drafted to minimize overlap with constitutional civil service requirements and that any potential jurisdictional issues did not justify invalidating the statute on its face.

labor & employment

The case involved union representatives convicted of trespassing under Penal Code section 602 after entering a private construction site to conduct safety inspections and prepare steward reports pursuant to collective bargaining agreements with subcontractors on the site. The court granted writs of habeas corpus and ordered the defendants discharged, holding that their refusal to leave upon the owner's request did not violate the trespass statute. The core reasoning was that California labor statutes and decisions recognize union representatives' right to enter jobsites for accepted and traditional lawful union activities like safety inspections, which do not harm the landowner's economic or property interests and thus are not subject to criminal prosecution for trespass.

labor & employmentcriminal lawproperty

The case involved Jeanice D., a minor convicted as an adult of first degree murder without special circumstances and firearm use, who challenged her direct sentencing to state prison for 25 years to life plus two years without a prior diagnostic evaluation by the California Youth Authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.2. The Supreme Court of California granted habeas relief, holding that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to remand her for the CYA evaluation. The court reasoned that Jeanice's conviction carried an indeterminate sentence under Penal Code section 190, making her eligible for CYA commitment under section 1731.5, consistent with the longstanding precedent in People v. Ralph that minors facing indeterminate life-maximum terms are not automatically ineligible. The Attorney General's argument that the sentence was a determinate life term with a 25-year minimum was rejected as conflicting with the statute's language and history. The decision did not reach whether section 707.2 requires evaluations even for those ineligible for CYA commitment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Joseph Anthony Zamora, who was convicted of battery on a police officer and resisting an officer after an altercation during a response to a domestic argument call. Prior to trial, the defense sought discovery of citizen complaint records against the involved officers to potentially impeach their testimony regarding use of force, but the city attorney's office had directed destruction of unsustained complaint records through 1974. The California Supreme Court determined that this destruction was improper and deprived the defendant of the opportunity to locate potential witnesses, constituting reversible error by the trial court in failing to impose any sanction. Weighing factors including lack of proven bad faith, the records' status as a source for impeachment rather than direct evidence, and the need to deter improper destruction without granting impunity for assaults on officers, the court held that the appropriate sanction was a specific jury instruction permitting inferences of the officers' propensity for excessive force and testimonial bias.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) adopting 1980 industry-wide wage orders setting minimum wages, maximum hours, and working conditions, which numerous employers challenged in multiple superior court actions, leading to stay orders that blocked implementation. The IWC, through the Attorney General, petitioned the California Supreme Court for original writ relief to resolve common legal issues promptly and avoid the prolonged, inconsistent litigation that had delayed prior wage orders. The court exercised its original jurisdiction, issuing an alternative writ of mandate, on grounds that the disputes affected millions of workers, involved quasi-legislative regulations, and warranted unified appellate review of validity and preemption claims under state and federal labor law. The opinion outlined background on IWC authority, standards for judicial review of administrative orders, and addressed employer arguments regarding federal preemption, gratuities, and rest-day rules without resolving the merits of the orders themselves.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an employee, Gordon Tameny, who was terminated by Atlantic Richfield Company after 15 years of service for refusing to participate in an alleged illegal scheme to fix retail gasoline prices in violation of antitrust laws. The employee sued on multiple theories, including tort claims for wrongful discharge, but the trial court sustained a demurrer to the tort counts, ruling that any remedy sounded only in contract. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that a tort action is available when an employer's discharge of an at-will employee contravenes fundamental public policy, such as by requiring the employee to commit a crime. The court reasoned that prior California and out-of-state decisions recognize tort liability in such circumstances beyond mere breach of contract, allowing recovery of traditional tort damages.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the City of San Diego's ordinance banning off-site advertising billboards and requiring removal of existing ones after an amortization period. Billboard owners sued to enjoin enforcement, and the trial court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power aimed at reducing traffic hazards and improving aesthetics, and that a ban on commercial off-site billboards did not violate the First Amendment. However, the ordinance was partially preempted by the state Outdoor Advertising Act, which requires compensation for removals near federal highways to avoid endangering federal funds. The judgment was reversed and remanded for proceedings to identify affected billboards.

free speechbusiness & regulatorypropertyfederal power