California Court of Appeal, 4th District — appointed by Ronald Reagan
People v. Fields
California Court of Appeal · 1984-08-23 · cited 22×
The case involved Sentarían Fields, who was convicted after pleading guilty to forcible oral copulation and rape; he appealed, challenging the lawfulness of his initial detention by police and aspects of his sentencing to state prison rather than the California Youth Authority. The court rejected the claim of unlawful detention, finding that the officer had specific and articulable facts—including the suspect's description, proximity to the crime scene, nervous behavior, and clothing—that justified a brief investigative stop, which lasted only five minutes before additional evidence led to arrest. It further held that the trial court properly considered the CYA evaluation report along with other factors such as the seriousness of the offenses and the need to protect society when imposing the upper-term sentences with enhancements. The convictions and sentence were affirmed.
criminal lawprocedure
County of San Diego v. Magri
California Court of Appeal · 1984-05-30 · cited 3×
The case involved the County of San Diego filing an action under Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350 to obtain reimbursement from Gwendolyn Magri for AFDC benefits paid for the support of her two children while they were in the care of a relative. After Magri was served but failed to respond due to her attorney's inaction and misrepresentations, the trial court entered a default order requiring her to pay $200 per month in child support. Magri moved to vacate the default on grounds of extrinsic fraud and sought a change of venue, but the court denied those requests while reducing ongoing support to zero based on her lack of ability to pay, setting arrearages at $2,525, and directing no repayment. The appellate opinion examined the procedural rules under sections 11350 and 11350.1, the use of order to show cause for temporary support, and the facts regarding Magri's reliance on counsel and changed financial circumstances.
family lawprocedure
McCaffrey v. Preston
California Court of Appeal · 1984-04-12 · cited 7×
The case involved neighbors seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Prestons from operating a licensed residential care facility for six or fewer elderly persons in their home, based on deed restrictions from the original grantor requiring single residential use only, with a reversionary interest. The trial court denied the injunction, finding the restrictions were personal covenants enforceable only by the grantor, whose interest had been extinguished by a quitclaim deed, and upheld the constitutionality of the Community Care Facilities Act. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the covenants did not create enforceable equitable servitudes due to lack of a specified dominant tenement or common plan, and that the Act expressly treats such small facilities as residential uses of property, overriding contrary private restrictions. The decision rejected challenges to the Act on equal protection and due process grounds while noting the statutory policy favoring community care facilities.
propertyhealthcare
Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
California Court of Appeal · 1984-04-02 · cited 9×
The case arose after the United Farm Workers union and a group of California vegetable growers, including petitioners Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc. and J.J. Crosetti Company, failed to reach a new collective bargaining agreement following the expiration of prior contracts. The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging the employers refused to bargain in good faith under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, and an administrative law officer and the Agricultural Labor Relations Board found violations of the Act based on the employers' conduct during and after negotiations, including their handling of proposals and declaration of impasse. The employers petitioned for review of the Board's order. The court reviewed the record and held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of bad faith bargaining on and after February 21, 1979, and therefore denied the petitions to annul the order.
labor & employment
Kreutzer v. County of San Diego
California Court of Appeal · 1984-03-15 · cited 28×
The case involved Herman Kreutzer, who held an outdoor entertainment license for his recreational facility subject to attendance conditions. After violating a requirement to hire security guards for counting attendees at a concert, the sheriff's department imposed a previously stayed nine-month suspension without an immediate hearing. Kreutzer petitioned for a writ of mandate in superior court to compel a hearing, which was ultimately provided, and the suspension was upheld; he then sought attorney's fees under Government Code section 800 and 42 U.S.C. section 1988 as a prevailing party enforcing due process rights. The superior court denied the fees motion and dismissed the petition as moot. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Kreutzer had not properly stated a section 1983 cause of action, was not a prevailing party entitled to fees under section 1988, and that the initial denial of a hearing was not arbitrary or capricious under section 800.
procedurecivil rights
Cerberonics, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal · 1984-02-22 · cited 6×
The case involved an employer, Cerberonics, appealing a superior court ruling that upheld the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's decision to charge the company's reserve account for unemployment benefits paid to a discharged technical typist. The employee was fired after refusing to sign a statement granting the employer exclusive rights to use her resume in bidding for a government contract renewal, a demand not part of her original employment terms. The court held that the employee was eligible for benefits because her refusal did not constitute misconduct under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256, as the employer's directive imposed a new and unreasonable burden under Labor Code section 2856. The reasoning centered on the public policy in Business and Professions Code section 16600 against contracts restraining a person's ability to engage in a profession or seek other employment, noting that employees may reasonably pursue career opportunities, including with competitors, without revealing trade secrets or neglecting duties.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory