Gordon Cologne

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case concerned Thomas Ray Jamison's appeal from his convictions for forcible rape with firearm use and robbery with firearm use, arising from an incident in which he entered Catherine S.'s apartment, threatened her with a gun, raped her, and took her property. Jamison argued that evidence of a prior rape committed against another woman was improperly admitted at trial and that his sentence under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), which imposed a full consecutive term for the rape, was unauthorized. The court held that the prior rape evidence was admissible to corroborate the victim's testimony regarding lack of consent and to demonstrate a common design or plan, given the similar methods of entry, threats, binding, and demands for property. It further concluded that section 667.6(c) permitted the trial court to impose a full, separate, and consecutive term for the rape conviction independent of the general consecutive sentencing rules in section 1170.1.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lichty v. Sickels, plaintiff Max Lichty sued to establish an easement by necessity over adjacent land owned by defendant Christopher Sickels, after both parcels had been separated from a common grantor in 1947, leaving Lichty's parcel landlocked; Lichty acquired his parcel in 1955 and filed suit in 1978. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sickels, ruling that the action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 318. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 318 does not apply to claims for easements by necessity. The court reasoned that such easements arise automatically by operation of law at the time of the original conveyance and continue as long as the necessity persists, reflecting a public policy against rendering land unusable, which would be undermined by applying a fixed limitations period starting from acquisition of title.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendants charged with violating a San Diego municipal ordinance prohibiting the establishment or transfer of adult motion picture theaters within 1,000 feet of residential zones, churches, schools, parks, or other adult businesses. Defendants demurred in municipal court on First Amendment grounds and claims of creating a monopoly, but the demurrer was overruled and a subsequent motion to dismiss denied; they then sought a writ of prohibition in superior court, which was also denied. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denials, concluding the ordinance was facially constitutional under Young v. American Mini Theatres because its purpose was to prevent neighborhood blight rather than suppress speech, a sufficient factual basis existed from precedents in other jurisdictions, and review was limited to the face of the complaint without evidence of as-applied effects. The court noted that challenges based on restricted site availability or definitional issues required factual development beyond a demurrer.

free speechcriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

In People v. Summers, the defendant was convicted after a court trial of second degree murder with firearm use for going armed to the home of a man who had stolen drugs from him, confronting the victim with a gun, and fatally shooting him during a struggle. The trial court had initially found first degree murder but reduced the degree to second under Penal Code section 1181. On appeal Summers contended there was insufficient evidence of implied malice to support second degree murder. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the circumstances of the armed confrontation supplied substantial evidence of malice beyond the mere fact of an assault with a deadly weapon.

criminal law

The case involved borrowers who repeatedly tendered late or insufficient payments on a note secured by a second deed of trust, prompting the lender to record multiple notices of default and pursue foreclosure; the borrowers sought a preliminary injunction to halt the process and raised additional claims for return of commissions based on alleged nondisclosure of the lender's status as a real estate broker and limited partnership general partner. The court addressed an appeal from an order dissolving the preliminary injunction that had been granted conditionally on bringing payments current. It concluded that the borrowers were not entitled as a matter of law to recover commissions under Business and Professions Code section 10248.2 because the complaint failed to properly allege broker status or a qualifying violation, while payment disputes and related factual issues remained for trial.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved licensed automobile dealers and dismantlers challenging Vehicle Code sections 4456.1 and 9263, which impose administrative service fees or investigation fees for untimely document submissions to the DMV, as unconstitutional takings of property without prior notice or hearing under the federal and state due process clauses. The licensees argued that fees are assessed administratively by comparing dates and that disciplinary hearings only address nonpayment rather than the validity of the underlying violation. The court analyzed the claims under the three-factor balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, considering the affected private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, and governmental interests, while noting the existence of an informal correction process and the ability under the Administrative Procedure Act to contest the assessment's validity, computations, or nonpayment in any later disciplinary proceeding. The court determined that the statutory scheme provides sufficient opportunity to be heard and does not require a preassessment evidentiary hearing.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

Dr. Patrick Marmion, a fourth-year OB-Gyn resident at Mercy Hospital, sued after the hospital placed him on probation, suspended him, held a hearing, and terminated him from the program, seeking reinstatement via writ of mandate. The trial court denied his petition and motion to vacate, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Marmion received actual notice that the April 3 hearing concerned his continuation in the program, that the hospital's procedures satisfied fair hearing requirements, and that any evidence of uncharged incidents caused no prejudice sufficient to alter the outcome. The residency contract and hospital policies required notice and opportunity to be heard before termination, which the court found were met based on the record.

procedurelabor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a maritime employee injured when his stalled car was struck by a train at a congested railroad crossing near his shipyard workplace during a shift change; he sued the railroad for negligence and sought punitive damages for alleged willful misconduct, while his employer intervened to recover federal workers' compensation benefits paid under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment applying federal admiralty standards, which permitted the employer to recover its full compensation lien without reduction for its own comparative negligence and denied the employee's request to submit punitive damages to the jury. The core reasoning relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents interpreting the LHWCA and maritime law, which preserve the employer's right to full reimbursement from third parties without contribution or adjustment for comparative fault, and found insufficient evidence of the railroad's willful misconduct to warrant punitive damages.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved whether the Department of Motor Vehicles could suspend Duane Johnson's driver's license under a 1981 amendment to Vehicle Code section 13352 for two drunk driving offenses within five years, even though his second offense occurred before the amendment's effective date. The trial court granted Johnson's petition for mandate to set aside the suspension, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the new law, which based suspension on the dates of the offenses rather than convictions, could not be applied retroactively to Johnson's case because the statute lacked a clear legislative intent for retroactive effect, and doing so would deprive him of a preexisting right to his license.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved sellers and a buyer in a real estate purchase agreement for residential property, under which the buyer was required to provide an irrevocable written loan commitment within 45 days as a condition precedent. After the buyer failed to do so by the deadline or during an extension to the end of November 1977, the sellers terminated the agreement in December 1977 and sought rescission and declaratory relief. The trial court ruled for the sellers, denying the buyer's request for a jury trial and finding the buyer had no rights under the contract. The appellate court affirmed, holding that although time was not of the essence, the buyer failed to perform within a reasonable time, justifying termination, and rejecting claims of jurisdictional conflicts between state and federal courts.

property

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of two commercial properties between Albert Dixon and the Salvation Army. Before escrow closed and title or possession transferred, a fire destroyed one building on the 8th & K property, leading to disagreement over whether the contract could be enforced at a reduced price or should be rescinded. The trial court granted Dixon's motion for summary judgment, declaring that the purchase price could be abated to reflect the loss. The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying Civil Code section 1662 (the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act), which assigns the risk of loss to the seller when neither title nor possession has passed, and following precedents from other jurisdictions that preserve the buyer's common-law right to specific performance with abatement. The court reasoned that the statute does not eliminate equitable remedies available to the purchaser in this situation.

property

The case involved Joseph and Bobbette Schlussel, California residents, suing Florence Schlussel, a New York resident, for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from multiple obscene and threatening telephone calls she allegedly made from Florida to the plaintiffs in California. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that California could exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident who intentionally caused tortious effects in the state by acts done elsewhere when those effects arise from conduct that the state subjects to special regulation, as here with Penal Code section 653m prohibiting harassing calls.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved former partners in the Timely Investment Club (TIC) who resigned and sought redemption of their ownership units from available partnership assets held in trust by the Guinn-Hill Corporation (GHC). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants Guinn, the Hills, and Williams, as officers and directors of GHC and partners in TIC, breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing and receiving unauthorized fees, commissions, and consulting payments from trust assets after the plaintiffs' resignations, instead of using those funds to redeem the plaintiffs' interests. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages of $40,225.45 based on these improper self-dealing transactions. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the payments violated fiduciary duties under the partnership and trust agreements, were not authorized as extraordinary services, involved secret profits without notice to other partners, and should have been directed toward satisfying the redemption claims as creditors.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned the property tax assessment of leased Xerox copier equipment in San Diego County, specifically whether an assessor using the income approach to valuation could add an imputed 5 percent sales tax figure to reach the full cash value at the consumer trade level. The assessor included the amount on the March 1, 1974 lien date, the Assessment Appeals Board deleted it, and the superior court reinstated it while ordering payment of additional taxes. On appeal, the court addressed the single issue of the propriety of the imputed sales tax addition under California constitutional and statutory standards requiring assessment at fair market value. The core reasoning relied on the trade level concept to achieve equity between leased and purchased equipment, the statutory definition of full cash value as the price in an open market, and precedent upholding similar valuation methods that capitalize income and incorporate sales tax elements.

taxesproperty