California Court of Appeal, 2nd District — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Travelers Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal · 1982-12-17 · cited 4×
This case concerned the distribution of a maximum $50,000 workers' compensation death benefit after an employee died from a work-related injury, leaving only partial dependents (his parents and sisters) and no total dependents. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, following an earlier appellate decision, approved a stipulation awarding $25,000 to the partial dependents and $25,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations. The court annulled the award, ruling that Labor Code section 4706.5 does not authorize any payment to the Department when partial dependents exist and that the partial dependents' benefit must instead be recalculated under the statutory formula of four times the amount the deceased annually contributed to their support, capped at $50,000. The matter was remanded to the Board for redetermination of the partial dependents' award.
labor & employment
People v. Cheri
California Court of Appeal · 1981-12-30 · cited 6×
The case involved defendant Neil Allan Cheri, who was convicted by a jury of burglary under Penal Code section 459. The trial court imposed a one-year sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), based on a prior second-degree burglary conviction from Washington. Defendant challenged the enhancement on appeal, arguing that the Washington conviction did not qualify because the state's burglary statute required only intent to commit any crime, which could include misdemeanors, unlike California's requirement of intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony. The court examined the record, including the Washington charging document, and found it insufficient to establish that the prior offense included all elements of the comparable California crime as required by section 667.5, subdivision (f). Accordingly, the court modified the judgment to strike the enhancement and affirmed the conviction as modified.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Olken
California Court of Appeal · 1981-11-24 · cited 11×
In People v. Olken, the defendant pled guilty to grand theft pursuant to a negotiated disposition and received the upper three-year prison term without the trial court stating reasons for selecting that term or denying probation, as required by Penal Code section 1170 and related court rules. A year after the judgment became final without an appeal, Olken moved to reduce the sentence to the middle term, and after denial he appealed. The Court of Appeal held that while the failure to articulate reasons was error, the sentence itself was authorized by law and not subject to correction or collateral attack once final, because such an irregularity does not render the judgment void or exceed the court's jurisdiction. The court reasoned that plea bargains create vulnerability to a range of sentences rather than a guaranteed term, that sentencing rules require reasons even in that context, and that longstanding principles of finality bar post-judgment relief for this type of procedural error.
criminal lawprocedure
Marvin v. Marvin
California Court of Appeal · 1981-08-11 · cited 25×
The case involved Michelle Marvin's lawsuit against Lee Marvin seeking support after their unmarried cohabitation ended in 1970. The trial court awarded her $104,000 primarily for economic rehabilitation to learn new skills, based on findings about her career prospects and the defendant's financial ability, even though it also found no prior agreement for support, no unjust enrichment, and no damages from the relationship. On appeal, the court held that this award exceeded the issues framed by the pleadings, which requested only reasonable monthly support and maintenance, not limited rehabilitative payments. The court therefore modified the judgment to delete the $104,000 award, concluding it lacked support in the pleadings, equity, or law.
family lawprocedure
Wear v. Calderon
California Court of Appeal · 1981-07-22 · cited 43×
In this case, plaintiff Kevin Paul Wear sued defendant Delphina Calderon and others for personal injuries from an automobile collision. Calderon served a pretrial offer to compromise for $1 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which was rejected; the jury later found in Calderon's favor but awarded Wear $18,500 against other defendants. The trial court granted Calderon expert witness fees as costs under section 998, but the Court of Appeal deleted that award. The court reasoned that section 998 contains an implied good-faith requirement that a settlement offer be realistically reasonable under the circumstances to encourage actual settlements, and that a token $1 offer does not satisfy this standard when the defendant faces substantial potential liability and has filed no cross-complaint.
proceduretorts & liability
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Burbank Generators, Inc.
California Court of Appeal · 1981-07-22 · cited 6×
The case involved an insurance coverage dispute between Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and its insured, Burbank Generators, Inc., over whether a theft of cargo from Burbank's vehicles parked overnight in an unfenced lot was covered under a specified inland marine policy. The trial court ruled the loss was not covered, finding that the vehicles had not yet begun transit when the theft occurred. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the loss occurred while the cargo was in transit because the trips had started when the goods were loaded and invoiced at Burbank's headquarters, the brief stop at the parking lot was solely to facilitate the drivers' early morning departure and was incidental to delivery, and the policy language covered losses during temporary interruptions related to transportation itself regardless of the location.
business & regulatory