William C. Doran

The case involved plaintiff property owners seeking declaratory relief to determine that deed restrictions limiting lots to single-family dwellings would not bar construction of multiple-unit structures, citing neighborhood changes, increased traffic, zoning to R-2, and prior violations of other restrictions including set-backs and racial covenants. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant neighbors, finding the restrictions enforceable, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the evidence showed the changes were insufficient to make enforcement inequitable or to prevent the restrictions' original purpose from being carried out, that rezoning does not override private deed covenants, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings on enforceability as equitable servitudes running with the land. An application to introduce additional evidence of subsequent deeds omitting the restrictions was denied as irrelevant to the issues tried.

property

In People v. Gonzalves, the appellant and his wife were convicted of the unlawful sale of heroin following a bench trial. The appellant contended on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to compel disclosure of an unidentified informant's name and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the informant was a passive observer who did not participate in the offense and therefore the informant's identity remained confidential, and that testimony from officers describing the appellant handing his wife a package of heroin and admitting involvement provided sufficient evidence linking him to the sale.

criminal law

The case involved a theater company that sued common carriers for damages after they negligently delayed delivery of scenery, equipment, and costumes from Los Angeles to San Francisco, causing the company to miss the opening performance of a play and incur related expenses plus an early cancellation of the run. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $4,607.54 in damages, and the appellate court affirmed that award while noting no appeal from the defendants' successful counterclaim. The court reasoned that Civil Code section 3317's market-value depreciation rule did not apply because the properties had a peculiar value for performance use known to the carriers, that section 3355 and proximate-cause principles instead governed the recoverable losses such as theater rental and salaries, and that evidence supported the causal connection between the delay and the claimed damages including unfavorable reviews and reduced business.

torts & liability

This case involved an infant plaintiff suing to establish that respondent Daniels, not her mother's then-husband Jay Schleuter, was her father, with the mother supporting that claim after initially defaulting. The trial court applied the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Code of Civil Procedure section 1962, subdivision 5, based on findings that the mother and Schleuter cohabited in Rome during the period of likely conception and that Schleuter was not impotent; it excluded evidence of non-access or prior pregnancy. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that cohabitation means living together ostensibly as spouses, that the statutory presumption is irrebuttable by testimony of no intercourse when access existed, and that the trial court correctly barred rebuttal evidence. The court distinguished cases with no shared residence and noted that any change to the presumption must come from the Legislature. Relevant topics are family law and procedure.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the appointment of an executor named in a decedent's will versus an administrator with the will annexed. The attorney named as executor delayed petitioning for probate for over two and a half years after learning of the death and the will's terms, while also providing legal advice to some heirs regarding estate assets and the surviving spouse's rights in a manner adverse to other interested parties. The trial court denied the attorney's petition, finding the delay without good cause and the conflict of interest, and instead appointed the bank nominated by the widow. Under Probate Code section 324, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the appointment, and the appellate court affirmed that this was not an abuse of discretion.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a parking lot operator petitioning to review and prohibit the suspension of his municipal permit by the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners for multiple violations of the city code by moving vehicles onto public streets from his lot. The trial court rejected the challenge, upholding the board's jurisdiction, the fairness of the hearing, and the constitutionality of Municipal Code section 26.03. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the ordinance constitutes a valid police-power regulation of a commercial business affected with a public interest, that size-based classifications are reasonable, and that the rules neither impair contract rights nor conflict with state law.

business & regulatory