California Court of Appeal, 1st District — appointed by Ronald Reagan
McCorkle v. State Farm Insurance
California Court of Appeal · 1990-06-05 · cited 12×
In McCorkle v. State Farm Insurance, homeowners sued their insurer and agent after a fire destroyed their garage, claiming breach of contract and torts including misrepresentation and negligence because the policy did not cover the full cost of rebuilding to comply with updated building codes requiring a concrete floor instead of wood. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the contract claim and judgment on the pleadings on the tort claims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's loss settlement clause limiting coverage to equivalent construction was unambiguous and did not require payment for code upgrades, consistent with similar provisions in standard fire insurance policies and the purpose of compensating only for actual loss. It further ruled that the tort claims failed for lack of causation, as any alleged failure to disclose an exclusion clause did not cause the uncovered costs. The judgment was affirmed.
propertyproceduretorts & liability
People v. Blevins
California Court of Appeal · 1990-05-31 · cited 7×
In People v. Blevins, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon and other offenses after driving a truck under the influence of drugs, firing a gun, stealing vehicles, and ramming into cars, injuring at least 25 people. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser related offenses of driving under the influence and reckless driving, as permitted under People v. Geiger. The court rejected this claim, finding that the lesser offenses were not closely related to the charged assault because evidence of voluntary intoxication was irrelevant to the general intent element of assault with a deadly weapon and thus could not support the requested instructions. The judgment was affirmed.
criminal lawprocedure
Bruno v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 1990-04-30 · cited 14×
The case arose from a small claims unlawful detainer judgment against petitioner Bruno for back rent and possession of an apartment; after appealing for a trial de novo in superior court, Bruno's attorney sought to take depositions and propound form interrogatories, which the opposing party resisted. The superior court denied the discovery requests and imposed $1,100 in sanctions on Bruno's counsel for filing the motion to compel. The Court of Appeal held that formal discovery is unavailable in small claims appeals because the Legislature designed the small claims process, including de novo review under Code of Civil Procedure sections 116 et seq. and California Rules of Court rule 155, to be informal, expeditious, and inexpensive, with no attorneys or pleadings in the original action and limited formality on appeal; it further held that sanctions under section 128.5 were improper because the motion, though meritless, was not shown to have been brought in bad faith. The court therefore issued a writ directing vacation of the sanctions order.
procedureproperty
In Re Jeffrey P.
California Court of Appeal · 1990-03-23 · cited 34×
This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court order declaring his 20-month-old son a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) based on the mother's neglect, including failure to provide adequate care, exposure to drugs and violence, and physical injuries to the child. The father argued that jurisdiction was improper because he was a suitable parent with a stable home and that the department failed to properly assess his ability to care for the child. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dependency order, holding that jurisdiction may be established based on one parent's conduct alone and that the court was not required to investigate or place the child with the other parent when it did not remove physical custody from either parent but instead vested custody in the social services department while continuing shared parenting arrangements with conditions. The decision rested on the statutory framework allowing dependency findings without requiring both parents to be unsuitable and on the absence of any removal triggering additional placement requirements.
family law
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal · 1990-03-14 · cited 35×
In Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, the dispute centered on whether a 1984 sale and leaseback of commercial property in San Francisco triggered a reassessment of the property's value for tax purposes under Proposition 13. The trial court ruled that the transaction constituted a change in ownership, leading to a higher assessed value and increased taxes, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the sale met the statutory definition of change in ownership under Revenue and Taxation Code section 60 by transferring a present interest in the property, its beneficial use, and value equivalent to the fee interest. It distinguished the transaction as a true sale and leaseback rather than a financing arrangement, which would not trigger reassessment.
taxesproperty
In Re the Marriage of Tibbett
California Court of Appeal · 1990-02-28 · cited 5×
This case involved a dispute over unpaid child support in a divorced couple's case, where the noncustodial father stopped payments after the custodial mother moved out of state with the children and he could not locate them for several years. The trial court limited the father's arrearages obligation, excluding amounts from 1974 to 1983 due to the mother's alleged concealment of the children and interference with visitation. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1694 and Civil Code section 4382, a custodial parent's interference with visitation does not affect enforcement of child support obligations, as the child's need for support is paramount and concealment provides no defense or estoppel to collection of arrearages.
family law