John F. Aiso

This case concerned four accredited hospitals that sought a writ of mandate to compel the State Health Planning Council to poll its members on a petition for hearing filed by more than one-third of the board of a subordinate regional planning agency. The petition challenged the regional agency's approval of an application by Los Angeles New Hospital to convert a convalescent facility to an acute-care hospital, but five signatories later withdrew their names, leaving the petition with support from fewer than one-third of the board. The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the petition; on appeal, the Court of Appeal examined the statutory requirements of Health and Safety Code sections 437–438.5 and related regulations to determine whether the petition remained valid after the withdrawals and whether the council had a duty to proceed. The court analyzed the facts alleged in the petition, judicially noticeable matters, and admissions by the parties to resolve whether the appeal process had been properly invoked.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In People v. Orr, defendant Steven John Orr was charged with second-degree burglary after a home was burglarized and stolen items including a blue metal box were recovered following his arrest. He moved to suppress the real evidence and his confession under Penal Code section 1538.5, arguing they stemmed from an illegal arrest that began when an officer looked inside the box without a warrant after observing the defendant throw a suitcase over a wall in a high-burglary area near a college campus. The trial court denied the motion, Orr waived a jury trial and was convicted on the preliminary hearing transcript, then appealed the suppression ruling. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the officer's observations of furtive behavior created reasonable suspicion justifying the investigative actions and that probable cause for arrest arose once papers inside the box identified the owner, making the subsequent confession and recovery of evidence lawful. The court found no violation of Fourth Amendment standards under the circumstances, including the need for quick action in the field.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Paul A. Norwood, who was charged with four counts of violating Penal Code section 475a for possessing completed warrants and a money order with intent to defraud. A court trial resulted in acquittal on one count and convictions on the other three, leading to concurrent jail sentences. On appeal, the court reversed the convictions on counts I and II because Los Angeles County warrants are not checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks as required by the statute and thus do not establish the corpus delicti of the offense. The conviction on count III, involving a money order, was affirmed based on sufficient evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved truck owners suing the manufacturer of allegedly defective wheels installed on their Chevrolet trucks, seeking damages for depreciation in vehicle value, inspection and repair costs, and loss of use due to safety recall letters from General Motors, without claiming any personal injuries or physical damage to the vehicles. The plaintiffs asserted claims against Kelsey-Hayes for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal after sustaining demurrers without leave to amend, holding that such economic losses are not recoverable from a manufacturer lacking privity with the plaintiffs in the absence of bodily injury or physical property damage, consistent with precedents limiting negligence recovery to those categories and relegating loss-of-bargain claims to direct warranty actions between immediate parties.

torts & liability

The case involved proponents of a local initiative ordinance in Ventura County that would restrict the county's ability to own or operate airports; they filed a petition with the county clerk, who refused to verify signatures after being advised the measure would be invalid if passed. The superior court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the clerk to count signatures, check voter qualifications, and forward sufficient petitions to the board of supervisors. On appeal, the court held there was no mandatory duty for the trial court to resolve the ordinance's validity before compelling the clerk to perform these ministerial duties under Elections Code section 3707. It reasoned that initiative rights should not be blocked by a clerk's preemptive legal assessment, following precedents that reserve such validity determinations for later judicial review on a compelling showing, while allowing courts equitable discretion to address validity in appropriate cases.

electionsprocedure

Plaintiff Jean Zumbrun, a 63-year-old student at USC, sued the university, its president, a trustee, and a professor after the professor halted teaching Sociology 200 midway through the semester as part of a faculty strike and failed to administer a final exam, claiming breach of contract, fiduciary duties, fraud, and related theories, and seeking damages for wasted tuition, lost income, and emotional distress. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal as to the trustee but reversed as to the remaining defendants, reasoning that the complaint failed to adequately plead fiduciary or trust claims but could be amended to state viable contract or restitution counts, while rejecting the common count for money had and received.

proceduretorts & liability