Edward Thomas Butler

This case arose from a libel and conspiracy lawsuit filed by unsuccessful San Diego City Council candidate Jamie Brierton against winning candidate Susan Golding and her campaign aide George Gorton, based on a last-minute election brochure that highlighted allegations of "violations of trust" and "improprieties" from prior conservatorship proceedings involving Brierton's firm. The trial court granted summary judgment to Golding and Gorton, dismissed the complaint, and awarded attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal because Brierton, as a public figure, failed to present clear and convincing evidence of actual malice in the publication. It reversed the attorney fee award. The core reasoning applied the actual malice standard to statements made in the context of an election campaign.

electionsfree speech

In this marital dissolution case, Harold and Bonnie Graves divorced in 1970 without dividing Harold's military pension, a community asset, in their decrees; sixteen years later, Bonnie moved in family court under Civil Code section 4800.4 to divide it as tenants in common. The trial court granted her a share of future payments, allowing Harold to raise defenses from Henn v. Henn. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 4800.4 grants jurisdiction only to divide separate property interests alongside community property division and does not authorize post-decree division of omitted community assets in the original proceeding. Instead, per Henn, such claims require a separate civil action where equitable defenses like laches may be litigated.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over a co-obligor's right to contribution from the estate of a deceased joint debtor on a promissory note. After Borba obtained a judgment against multiple parties including Acheson and the estate of Richard Klawa, Acheson paid a large share of the judgment and sought contribution from the estate. The trial court denied the claim, ruling that it was barred because it had not been presented to the estate within the four-month creditor claim period under Probate Code section 707(a). The appellate court reversed, holding that a claim for contribution arises from equitable principles and operation of law upon actual payment rather than from the underlying contract, and that it was not required to be filed during the statutory period because the right did not exist until after the decedent's death.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a car accident caused by a Spartan Realty employee driving a rented vehicle, where the business liability policy issued by Hartford Fire Insurance explicitly excluded non-owned auto or hired car coverage at the time of the incident. Spartan later added the optional coverage via endorsement three months after the accident, and Hartford initially defended the claims under a reservation of rights before filing for declaratory relief to confirm the lack of coverage. The trial court ruled in Hartford's favor on summary adjudication, finding no waiver or estoppel, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the policy terms plainly excluded the risk at the time of the accident, the insureds showed no detrimental reliance, and the parties had agreed on the coverage limitations without fraud or misrepresentation.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a geothermal lease on land owned by the Imperial Irrigation District, under which ITP held the leasehold and assigned steam production rights to Southern, Mono, and later Union, who became co-owners of interests in the steam. When regulatory orders required costly brine waste disposal, the assignees attempted to surrender their interests back to ITP under clauses in the assignment and lease; after a federal court held ITP solely liable for the costs, the assignees sought to retract the surrender and reassert their claims, prompting Kennecott (ITP's successor) to sue to quiet title. The trial court granted Kennecott summary judgment, ruling the surrender effective and eliminating the defendants' interests, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the lease and assignment permitted unilateral surrender by the lessees upon notice, with no requirement for ITP's acceptance or consent, so the surrender terminated the interests as a matter of law regardless of later events or ITP's initial position.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Carlos Lepe appealing his four-year prison sentence for grand theft person with a prior prison term enhancement, which the trial court ordered to run concurrently with an earlier four-year sentence for assault with a deadly weapon from a separate case. The sentencing court exercised its discretion to impose concurrent rather than consecutive terms specifically to maximize Lepe's total incarceration time, given how enhancements and credits operated under the determinate sentencing law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Penal Code section 669 grants trial courts discretion to choose concurrent or consecutive sentences without any requirement to impose consecutive terms when criteria for aggravation are present, and that the court's reasoned decision to achieve the longest possible term for a repeat offender did not exceed the bounds of reason.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a contract between a doctor, as an independent contractor, and a hospital to manage its laboratory and pathology department for a one-year term, with an extension to continue operations until a new contract could be signed by November 1984; the agreement expressly allowed either party to terminate without cause on 90 days' written notice. After the hospital gave such notice in November 1984, the doctor continued working through the notice period, then sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, claiming the termination was retaliatory for his complaints about patient care and hospital practices. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that the contract's clear termination provision was followed without breach, that precedents on wrongful discharge of at-will employees did not apply to this independent contractor arrangement, and that the covenant of good faith could not be used to add a requirement of lawful cause that would rewrite the unambiguous "without cause" clause.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned a dispute between former spouses over the extension of spousal support payments after their 1982 divorce decree was modified by stipulation in 1982. The modified decree set a termination date of December 31, 1986, and stated that spousal support was non-modifiable as to term and amount except under conditions tied to the wife's educational enrollment. The wife petitioned to extend support beyond that date due to an unanticipated internship requirement for her counseling degree, which the trial court granted by extending payments to April 30, 1987. The husband appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the term because the parties had contractually agreed to non-modifiability and no qualifying change of circumstances had occurred after the order.

family law

The case involved a California Highway Patrol officer who sued the State and his supervisor for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging harassment and forced disability retirement after he testified in a personal injury case. The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend, dismissing the action, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that terms and conditions of civil service employment are governed by statute rather than contract, so no implied contractual covenant applies, and the employee was required to exhaust administrative remedies within the civil service system. It further held that the Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the emotional distress claims arising from workplace conduct.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, prospective adoptive parents (the M’s) petitioned under Civil Code section 232(a)(1) to terminate the parental rights of biological mother Lora S. and father Jeffrey M. over their infant son, alleging the parents had abandoned the child by relinquishing him for adoption and failing to communicate with or support him for over six months. The trial court dismissed both petitions after finding insufficient evidence of intent to abandon. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute limits the inquiry to whether abandonment occurred and that considerations of the child’s best interests or potential detriment from removal are not relevant at that stage. Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the parents had not abandoned the child.

family lawprocedure

This case involves Maggio Farms seeking judicial review of an ALRB decision finding that the United Farm Workers union bargained in bad faith from 1982 to 1984 through excessive delays in negotiations, failure to respond to proposals, and delays in providing requested benefit plan information. Maggio argued the Board should have ordered the union to compensate employees for resulting losses, awarded the company negotiation and litigation costs, and found bad faith on additional grounds such as regressive proposals. The court denied the petition for a writ of review, holding that the Agricultural Labor Relations Act authorizes makewhole pay only for an employer's refusal to bargain and that the Board's findings and remedies were supported by substantial evidence.

labor & employment

The case involved Daniel Caplan's conviction for oral copulation and lewd conduct with a child under 14 years old. The trial court found him guilty based on the victim's statements and supporting testimony, sentencing him to three years in prison. On appeal, the court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions but that the trial court erred in denying discovery and admission of evidence regarding the child's psychiatric history. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling on the evidentiary issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over real estate broker commissions in the probate sale of property from decedent Ralph L. Brown's estate. The estate administrator contracted with Golden to sell the property and obtained an initial $412,000 offer; at the confirmation hearing, broker Rodger Barwick presented a successful overbid of $433,100 on behalf of new buyers and sought a higher commission under Probate Code section 761. The probate court confirmed the sale but applied the limitation in section 785 to cap Barwick's commission at one-half the difference between the original bid and the overbid amount, awarding him $10,550 rather than the larger sum he requested. Barwick appealed, arguing that the section 785 limit did not apply to commissions under section 761. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that section 785 expressly governs compensation for agents producing successful overbidders in such probate sales.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Mary Alice Hill was appointed Director of Intercollegiate Athletics at San Diego State University in 1984 under the university's Management Personnel Plan after serving in various athletic department roles on temporary, year-to-year appointments that explicitly stated no tenure or permanent status was granted. In 1985, following her unauthorized attempts to terminate staff, President Thomas B. Day reassigned and terminated her employment with 90 days' notice. Hill petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking reinstatement, back pay, attorney fees, and a liberty hearing, arguing documents in her file conferred permanent status and that the circumstances stigmatized her. The court denied the petition, ruling that section 42723 of the California Administrative Code provides Management Personnel Plan employees serve at the pleasure of the president without probationary periods or permanent status, that Hill had no prior permanent status to retain, and that no stigmatizing statements occurred to require a liberty hearing.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

Cynthia Phillips, a probationary deputy sheriff for San Diego County, was terminated three days before completing her 18-month probationary period. She was granted a liberty interest hearing before the Civil Service Commission, which found the misconduct allegations unsupported but declined to reinstate her or award backpay. Phillips petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel reinstatement as a tenured deputy and backpay from the termination date; the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that under applicable civil service rules and federal due process precedents such as Board of Regents v. Roth, the sole purpose of a liberty interest hearing is to provide an opportunity to clear one's name, not to order reinstatement or backpay. The court noted that probationers generally have no appeal rights regarding separation and that the Commission lacked authority to grant the requested remedies.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over whether an airplane liability insurance policy covered the deaths of two passengers in a crash. The policy endorsement required that coverage be effective only when the plane was operated by a pilot with a current medical certificate, but the designated pilot's certificate had expired at the time of the flight, though his physical condition did not contribute to the accident caused by pilot error. The insurer denied coverage and sought declaratory relief, while the passengers' heirs argued that the lack of a causal connection between the expired certificate and the crash meant the policy remained effective. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs, finding the insurer's admission that the policy was in force waived the certificate requirement and that the absence of a causal link preserved coverage. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's plain language excluding coverage when the pilot lacked a current medical certificate controlled regardless of causation, and the admission did not waive that condition.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In People v. Cardenas, the defendant was convicted of second degree burglary and admitted three prior felony convictions, resulting in a six-year sentence that included three one-year enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5(b) for prior prison terms. The trial court treated the defendant's 1981 burglary conviction and subsequent 1982 in-prison felony conviction as separate prison terms eligible for separate enhancements, despite their occurrence during a continuous prison commitment. Cardenas appealed, arguing that the terms were not separate under People v. Ruiz and section 667.5(g), so only one enhancement should apply. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence, concluding that a consecutive sentence imposed for an in-prison felony under section 1170.1(c) constitutes a distinct prior separate prison term based on the statutory definition and the expiration of prior commitments.

criminal law

This case involves a California borrower that sued its Colorado lender for treble damages under California usury law after paying 44 percent interest on a promissory note. The note specified that Colorado law would govern, and that state's law permitted rates up to 45 percent. The trial court sustained the lender's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the parties' choice of Colorado law was enforceable as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed, concluding that application of the chosen law required factual determinations about the parties' contacts with each state and whether enforcement would contravene a fundamental California public policy.

business & regulatory

The case involved Cynthia McPherson, a long-time secretary in the Carlsbad Unified School District’s personnel and employee relations office, who was denied reclassification to a confidential secretary position and later transferred to a high school after attempting to join the teachers union’s negotiating committee. McPherson alleged that these actions constituted discrimination and interference based on her union-related activities, in violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) rejected her claims and found no unfair practice by the District. The court remanded the matter to PERB for further proceedings, noting that PERB had not adequately analyzed the interference claim arising from a supervisor’s statement and directing application of the correct legal standards for protected activity and employer conduct.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between Cox Cable San Diego and the City of San Diego over whether the state Cable Rate Deregulation Act (Government Code section 53066.1) preempted the City's authority to regulate cable television subscriber rates under a 1979 franchise agreement. Cox sought declaratory relief after notifying the City of its intent to deregulate rates pursuant to the Act, but the City, as a charter city, asserted it could continue regulation as a municipal affair. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cox, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that cable television regulation is a matter of statewide concern, the Act constitutionally applies to and preempts charter cities when its conditions are met, and it does not impair contractual rights in a manner that violates the constitution. The court reasoned that the Act manifests legislative intent to occupy the field of rate regulation under specified conditions satisfied here, overriding local control.

business & regulatory