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

The case concerned an appeal from a trial court's denial of a defendant's post-conviction motion to vacate his judgment, treated as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, after he was convicted by jury on counts of forgery, grand theft, and a Vehicle Code violation with prior felony enhancements. The trial court had denied the motion because the asserted claims of due process violations, insufficient evidence, denial of speedy trial, and prejudicial errors should have been raised at trial, on motion for new trial, or on direct appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the petition alleged only conclusions rather than specific facts, raised issues outside the scope of coram nobis relief, and failed to demonstrate diligence given the nearly one-year delay without explanation for why the claims were not pursued earlier when known to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Frebank Company and its former vice president Eugene White over unpaid compensation. White sued for a balance of salary and bonus allegedly owed under an oral employment agreement that included a minimum annual bonus of $4,000, which the company characterized as a discretionary gratuity. The trial court found that the bonus promise was part of an enforceable contract reflected in an employer verification document, supported by White's continued employment and contributions to the company's growth, and awarded him $3,358.34 plus interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings of a binding promise and correct computation of damages based on thirteen months of service at the agreed rates.

labor & employment

The case involved landowners who sued an oil and gas lessee for delay rental payments after the lessee neither drilled on the property nor paid rentals during the lease term. The trial court ruled for the lessee, finding the lease was an "unless" type that terminated automatically without drilling or payment, rather than a "pay or drill" type imposing a payment obligation. The appellate court affirmed, relying on the lease's printed form language, which lacked any express requirement to pay rentals and instead used permissive terms for extending drilling time, along with surrounding circumstances showing the lessee's intent to proceed only if additional leases were secured. The court distinguished the lease from "drill or pay" forms and applied rules of contract interpretation considering the context of negotiations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a building contractor whose license was revoked by the Contractors State License Board after findings that he violated multiple sections of the Business and Professions Code, including abandoning a project without excuse, misrepresenting facts on a license application, failing to complete work for the agreed price, and not paying subcontractors or suppliers. The contractor sought a writ of mandate in superior court to set aside the revocation, but the trial court denied relief upon concluding that the weight of the evidence supported the board's determinations and that the contractor had received a fair hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed, applying the rule that its review was limited to whether substantial evidence supported the judgment and finding that the record contained ample evidence of the violations without any showing of procedural unfairness or abuse of discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In People v. Cahan, the defendant was convicted of bookmaking after police officers, invited into a private home by the resident Mrs. Springer due to her concerns about phone misuse, hid in a bedroom and observed both defendants engaged in the activity before arresting them without warrants. The sole issue on appeal was whether Mrs. Springer's consent to the officers' entry, remaining, and hiding was voluntary or instead amounted to submission to police authority, which would render the observations and resulting evidence inadmissible as the product of an unlawful search. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the evidence showed voluntary consent, the officers' presence in the home was therefore lawful, and the observations of the felony in their presence provided probable cause for the warrantless arrests under Penal Code section 836. The court further noted that a lawful entry does not become unlawful merely because officers observe incriminating conduct while properly on the premises.

criminal lawprocedure

The case In re Davis involved a petitioner convicted of grand theft who received probation with conditions of jail time and restitution exceeding $16,000; after an appeal affirmed the conviction, the trial court enforced, modified, and later revoked the probation for noncompliance with reporting and payment requirements, extending it by two years. The petitioner filed for habeas corpus relief, contending that the five-year probation period had expired in 1956 regardless of the appeal and that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue further orders. The court denied the petition and discharged the writ, reasoning that the signed stay order suspended all proceedings including probation during the appeal, thereby tolling the probationary period, and that Penal Code section 1203.3 authorized the trial court to revoke or modify probation upon finding violations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether California's Subsequent Injuries Fund was liable for additional workers' compensation benefits to an employee who suffered an industrial eye injury that combined with a preexisting mental disability to produce greater overall impairment. The Industrial Accident Commission found the employee 79% disabled from the combination and ordered the Fund to pay the difference between the 46% rating for the new injury alone and the total combined rating. The Court of Appeal annulled the award and remanded the matter, holding that under Labor Code section 4751 and recent precedent the Fund is liable only when the employer knew or reasonably should have known of the preexisting condition, because the statutory scheme is intended to encourage hiring of persons with known partial disabilities. The record contained no evidence on the employer's knowledge, so the commission's failure to address that issue required reversal.

labor & employment

The case concerned a claim and delivery action in which Schimel Arms Corporation sought to recover four manufacturing dies from Buey, who asserted an unpaid seller's lien on them; Schimel obtained the dies via a bond from New Amsterdam Casualty Company under Code of Civil Procedure section 512 but later dismissed the suit without returning the property. Buey then sued the surety on the bond to recover the amount of his lien. The court decided that the surety remained liable on the bond because section 512 requires the obligor to ensure prosecution of the action, allowing recovery even after voluntary dismissal, and that Buey had a valid, unwaived lien supported by evidence. It further held that damages were properly measured by the value of the dies at the time of taking rather than scrap value, leading to affirmance of the judgment for $3,871.08.

procedureproperty

The case involved defendant Lawton, who was charged with violating Health and Safety Code section 11500 for possession of heroin, with a prior conviction admitted. Police officers observed him retrieve a package from under an ice plant near his car, set a trap with fluorescent powder on the package, arrested him after he took and discarded it, and recovered the heroin. Lawton appealed, arguing unreasonable search and seizure, insufficient evidence, evidentiary errors including leading questions and hearsay, and violations of due process and self-incrimination protections. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the recovered evidence involved no unlawful search or seizure, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there were no prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal from a conviction for grand theft from the person, a lesser included offense, after the defendant was charged with robbery for allegedly taking $16 from a victim's wallet on a Los Angeles street using a knife to create fear. The defendant argued that the complaining witness's testimony was inherently improbable and that conviction on the lesser charge was inconsistent with disbelieving the force and fear elements. The court determined that the trial judge could have rejected the knife and fear portions of the testimony while still finding the remaining evidence sufficient to prove grand theft from the person. The judgment of conviction was affirmed based on the adequacy of the supporting evidence.

criminal law

The case concerned a contractor's challenge to property tax assessments on unattached boiler component parts that manufacturers delivered directly to municipal construction sites in 1953 and 1954 under contracts with cities including Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles. The trial court upheld the assessments against the contractor, finding the contracts were for furnishing and erecting complete units rather than sales of parts. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that title to the parts passed to the cities upon delivery and invoicing, with the cities exercising control over the sites, so the parts were not taxable to the contractor. The court ordered refunds of the taxes paid under protest, noting the contractor had already been taxed on progress payments received and deposited.

taxesproperty

The case involved an insurance agent's challenge to the suspension of his license by the Insurance Commissioner for making false and misleading representations about a bank loan life insurance plan to clients. The superior court denied the petition for a writ of mandate, finding that the commissioner's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and that the agent did not come into court with clean hands. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the accusation was adequate, the hearings were fair, and the findings were supported by evidence of dishonesty and untrustworthiness under the Insurance Code.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a property owner who sued an architect for negligence and breach of contract after hiring the architect to provide general supervision during construction of a house, alleging that the architect approved substandard materials and workmanship despite the owner's protests, leading to defects such as faulty foundations, heating ducts, and concrete work. The trial court found the architect guilty of neglect in supervision, awarded the owner $6,000 in damages, and denied the architect's cross-claim for unpaid fees. On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding that the evidence supported the findings of negligence, the owner's payments to the contractor did not constitute a waiver, and a prior arbitration award between the owner and contractor had no preclusive effect on the separate claims against the architect.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved unlicensed individuals (the Pawlaks) suing a licensed real estate broker (Lahey) to recover a share of commissions from two motel sales, based on agreements to introduce potential buyers. The trial court granted judgment for the plaintiffs on the Wolf transaction but entered nonsuit on the Grieshaber transaction, and the appellate court affirmed both rulings. For the Wolf deal, the court found the plaintiffs' role was limited to introductions and maintaining contact, activities that did not require a real estate license under the Business and Professions Code, consistent with precedents like Shaffer v. Beinhorn. In contrast, the Grieshaber transaction involved additional actions such as selecting a specific property and providing negotiation advice, which constituted unlicensed brokerage services and barred recovery. The court also upheld the trial court's discretion regarding costs.

business & regulatoryproperty