California Court of Appeal, 6th District — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Francisco G. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 2001-08-10 · cited 102×
This case involves a father's petition challenging a juvenile court's order bypassing reunification services for his newborn daughter Esmeralda under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5(b)(10)(B), based on the prior termination of his parental rights to three siblings. The father argued that the bypass statute did not apply because he had not been a presumed father in the earlier proceedings, was not the custodial parent of the siblings, and had made reasonable efforts to address the issues leading to the prior removals. The court held that the bypass provision applies regardless of whether the parent held presumed father status or was custodial in the prior cases, and that substantial evidence supported the findings that the father had not made reasonable efforts to resolve the problems (primarily substance abuse and domestic violence) and that services would not be in the child's best interest. Accordingly, the petition for extraordinary writ was denied.
family lawprocedure
SHEILA S. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 2000-11-07 · cited 122×
The case concerned a mother's petition for an extraordinary writ challenging a juvenile court's order granting a section 388 petition to bypass reunification services for her three children and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The underlying proceedings arose from allegations that the mother had exposed the children to risks of sexual abuse by allowing contact with a registered sex offender grandfather and others with criminal histories, along with prior referrals and the mother's own history of abuse. The juvenile court had initially ordered reunification services at disposition but later modified that order after receiving psychological evaluations diagnosing the mother with conditions like PTSD, bipolar disorder, and personality disorders that rendered her unable to benefit from services. The appellate court denied the writ, concluding that a section 388 petition is a proper vehicle for modifying a dispositional order to bypass services and that substantial evidence supported the findings that bypass was in the children's best interests.
family lawprocedure
Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger
California Court of Appeal · 2000-08-02 · cited 15×
This case involved a dispute between two factions within a California Orthodox church parish over ownership of church property and an affiliated religious publishing company. After the local priests and a majority of parishioners sought to leave the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church (Antioch), Antioch filed suit claiming it was the rightful owner despite the local corporation holding title. The trial court ruled for Antioch after a bench trial, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that determining which faction represents the true church entitled to the property is an ecclesiastical question that civil courts must defer to church authorities on, in light of First Amendment protections.
religious libertyproperty
Redwood Empire v. Gombos
California Court of Appeal · 2000-07-18 · cited 15×
The case involved property owners in the Santa Cruz Mountains who sued to block a logging company from using a private road section on their land for commercial operations, after the company filed a counter-suit seeking to prevent interference; the actions were consolidated. The trial court found the road had been impliedly dedicated to public use based on recreational activities in the 1950s and 1960s, granting the company an injunction while denying the owners' request for relief. On appeal, the court affirmed that the road is public and that the owners could not use self-help to limit usage, but it reversed the denial of injunctive relief to the owners and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the scope of the implied dedication permitted commercial logging. The court reasoned that the company had no duty to update its earlier admission of no pre-1972 evidence once such evidence was found, that substantial evidence supported a dedication from public use, and that the trial court had improperly resolved the scope issue without full consideration.
propertyprocedure
Burden v. County of Santa Clara
California Court of Appeal · 2000-06-05 · cited 5×
Robert G. Burden sued the County of Santa Clara after his brief employment as an attorney was terminated, alleging that the County had fraudulently misrepresented the position as permanent to induce him to relocate his residence, in violation of common law fraud and Labor Code section 970. The trial court struck requests for punitive and double damages and granted the County's motion for summary judgment, holding that Government Code section 818.8 immunized the public entity from liability for misrepresentations by its employees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after independent review, concluding that section 818.8 applies to both claims because it bars recovery for injuries caused by any negligent or intentional misrepresentation without exception for routine hiring decisions. The court further noted that related damages provisions under Labor Code section 972 were unavailable due to the immunity ruling.
labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure
People v. Ranger Insurance
California Court of Appeal · 1999-11-18 · cited 6×
In this case, Ranger Insurance Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to set aside a summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture after the defendant failed to appear for sentencing. The company argued that a 1999 amendment to Penal Code section 1305, requiring bail forfeitures to be declared in open court, should apply retroactively to their case, which was decided before the amendment took effect. The court decided that the amendment applies only prospectively, as it imposes an additional procedural requirement rather than reducing or eliminating the power of forfeiture, and there was no legislative intent for retroactive application. Therefore, the trial court's order was affirmed.
criminal lawprocedure