James A. Cobey

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved defendants seeking postjudgment attorney's fees after prevailing in a contract action brought by Moulin Electric Corporation. The trial court denied the fees as untimely, and the appellate court affirmed this denial. Although Civil Code section 1717 allows prevailing parties in contract actions to recover reasonable attorney's fees as costs, the defendants failed to file a cost bill within the required 30 days after the remittitur from the prior appeal, thereby waiving their entitlement.

procedure

The case involved a taxpayer seeking a refund of over $25,000 in personal property taxes paid to the City of Pasadena for fiscal year 1976-1977 after an erroneous assessment that included real property. The taxpayer filed a verified claim for refund in May 1979 under the four-year period in Revenue and Taxation Code section 5097, but the city rejected it as untimely under the one-year limit in the city charter and municipal code. The court held that the one-year local period controlled, as Government Code section 935 authorizes local entities to prescribe procedures for tax refund claims excepted from the Tort Claims Act, and section 5097 applies only to claims before county boards of supervisors rather than city taxes. The denial of the refund was therefore affirmed.

taxesprocedure

This case arose from a marital dissolution proceeding between Clark and Jeanette Parker, in which the trial court awarded temporary physical custody of their two children to the wife and, as an incident to that award, granted her exclusive use of the family residence while excluding the husband. The husband appealed the exclusion order, arguing it exceeded the trial court's authority. The Court of Appeal reversed the order, holding that child custody provisions do not authorize excluding a spouse from the residence and that such relief is governed exclusively by Civil Code section 5102, whose amended requirements for showing assault, threats, or resulting harm were not met by the record. The court applied the current version of the statute rather than the prior one in effect at the time of the order, concluding the evidence of marital tension affecting the children was insufficient to justify the injunction.

family lawproperty

This case involved a challenge to the suspension of Eugene Henry Hasiwar's driver's license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles after his arrest for driving under the influence. Hasiwar completed two breath tests with differing results and refused a third test required by state regulation to ensure reliability, leading the DMV to suspend his license under Vehicle Code section 13353 for failing to complete a chemical test. The trial court granted him a writ of mandate to set aside the suspension, finding that he had complied with the law by taking more than the minimum one test. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the breath test is not complete until at least two consistent samples are obtained per administrative regulations, and that Hasiwar's refusal was based on his own legal misunderstanding rather than any error by the officer. The judgment was vacated with directions to deny the writ.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hale v. Farrell, contestant Dennis Hale challenged the election of Los Angeles City Councilman Robert Farrell, alleging that Farrell did not reside in his district as required by the city charter and that he violated Elections Code section 20021 by awarding certificates of merit to a majority of precinct board members. The trial court sustained Farrell's demurrer without leave to amend on both grounds—citing a pending preelection action on the residency claim and insufficient facts showing the certificates affected the election outcome—and dismissed the contest. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, holding that the proper remedy for a pending parallel action is abatement rather than dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. It affirmed the demurrer on the second ground, reasoning that the certificates did not constitute a prohibited bribe or reward under the statute, as they were a de minimis act not intended to procure the election and no misconduct by board members was alleged.

electionsprocedure

This case concerned a defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence—a gun case, revolver, and bullets—seized from his parked vehicle following an arrest on a traffic warrant. After a police officer recognized the closed opaque case as a gun case in plain sight, he opened it without a warrant and discovered a loaded firearm, leading to additional arrests under Penal Code section 12031. The municipal court denied the motion, and on appeal the court affirmed, holding that the gun case lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy because its probable contents could be inferred from its appearance, permitting the warrantless seizure and opening, and that the loaded gun's visibility in plain sight justified the arrests without prior inspection.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved former union presidents Harry and Richard Warren suing the current president Tom Herndon and their union for slander over statements made at a 1978 union meeting accusing them of unauthorized withdrawals of funds, conspiring to equalize compensation against board rules, and altering meeting minutes. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed after modification, on the ground that federal labor law governs such claims arising from union disputes. Under the standard from Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, the statements are actionable only upon proof of malice (actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth), and plaintiffs' opposing declarations raised no triable issue of material fact on Herndon's state of mind.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose when Aetna Casualty & Surety Company sought a writ of mandate after the superior court denied its motion for summary judgment in a declaratory relief action. The underlying dispute concerned whether Aetna had fully discharged its duties under an automobile liability policy by exhausting the $15,000 per-person limit to settle a living victim's personal injury claim, without also attempting to release a potential future wrongful death claim that accrued only after the victim later died from the same injuries. The court held that the insurer had no such obligation under either general negligence principles or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Its core reasoning was that the wrongful death claim had not yet accrued at the time of the personal-injury settlement, the policy limits had been properly exhausted on the only claim then presented, and requiring insurers to preemptively settle unaccrued claims would improperly extend existing law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a certified public accountant suing his former attorneys for malpractice, conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with prospective advantage, alleging conflicts of interest and improper representation during an SEC investigation into Equity Funding that led to his criminal indictment and related damages. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers to the second amended complaint and dismissed the action after the plaintiff declined to amend further. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, applying collateral estoppel from the plaintiff's federal criminal conviction to establish his guilt as the proximate cause of his indictment and damages, which defeated all tort claims for lack of causation between the alleged attorney misconduct and the injuries suffered.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Serafín Dominguez Ibarra, who was charged with possession of heroin for sale along with an allegation that he possessed one-half ounce or more, which carried a mandatory prohibition on probation under Penal Code section 1203.07. The trial court denied his motions to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of the car he was driving, accepted his negotiated guilty plea, struck the allegation, and placed him on probation. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the suppression motions, finding substantial evidence that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary despite surrounding circumstances. It reversed the probation order, holding that the trial court lacked authority to strike the allegation to avoid the statutory bar on probation. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the plea bargain and possible resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two individuals who entered the United States illegally, sustained injuries from violent crimes in California, and applied for compensation under the Victims of Violent Crimes Act; the State Board of Control denied their claims solely because they failed to qualify as residents under the Board's regulation defining that term to require lawful residence. The trial court granted administrative mandamus relief, finding the regulation invalid, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on that statutory ground without reaching the constitutional issues. The court reasoned that the Act requires only residency in California for eligibility without defining the term or imposing a lawfulness condition, so the regulation constituted an unauthorized amendment by the Board that added an extra-statutory requirement.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involved a misdemeanor drunk driving prosecution in which the defendant, after being advised of his right to choose a chemical test, repeatedly requested a blood test that was denied in favor of a breath test despite available facilities. The defendant moved pretrial to suppress the breath test results on due process grounds stemming from the violation of Vehicle Code section 13353, but the municipal court denied the motion as outside the scope of Penal Code section 1538.5, which applies only to unconstitutional searches and seizures. The appellate department reversed and ordered suppression, but the Court of Appeal held that the motion was a common-law suppression motion not reviewable pretrial and that the breath test did not involve a Fourth Amendment violation. The court therefore directed the appellate department to vacate its judgment and remand the case to municipal court for further proceedings, while noting that the denial of the blood test prevented the defendant from obtaining exculpatory evidence and thus barred use of the breath test results at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition for a writ of mandate challenging a Los Angeles Superior Court order that granted Arizona attorney Leo Beus permission to appear pro hac vice as counsel for plaintiffs in an underlying civil action against Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. The petitioner argued that Beus was ineligible under California Rules of Court, Rule 983(a), because he was regularly engaged in substantial professional activities in California and had made repeated appearances under the rule. The court interpreted the rule's language on activities to mean those performed in California, found the question of eligibility fairly close based on Beus's trips, calls, and correspondence over several years, and concluded that the trial court's decision to grant the application was within its discretion and not an abuse of that discretion. Accordingly, the appellate court discharged the alternative writ and denied the peremptory writ.

procedure

In Norton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, a deputy sheriff sought workers' compensation for multiple industrial injuries, including three specific and one cumulative back injury plus a cumulative gastrointestinal injury to the esophagus and stomach, all of which became permanent and stationary at the same time. The workers' compensation judge issued combined permanent disability rating instructions covering both the back and gastrointestinal disabilities, resulting in an 82.25% rating with weekly payments and a life pension. The Board granted reconsideration, issued separate ratings for each disability type, applied an overlapping disabilities reduction to the back rating, and awarded lower total benefits without a pension. The Court of Appeal held that successive injuries to the same body part becoming permanent simultaneously must be rated together under the Wilkinson rule and Labor Code section 5500.5, annulled the Board's decision, and remanded for a single combined rating.

labor & employment