This case involved two consolidated eminent domain actions by the California Department of Public Works against landowner Neider concerning parcels adjacent to Highway 101 in Marin County. In the freeway case, the state took land in fee and temporary drainage easements for highway widening; in the drainage case, it sought a permanent drainage easement over the same area after deciding the easement needed to remain open indefinitely. The appeal concerned alleged errors in jury instructions on encroachment permits, the defendant's rights to fill ditches, and valuation of the taken parcels as commercial strips. The court held that certain requested instructions were incorrect statements of law or argumentative, found no prejudicial ambiguity in the judgment, and modified and affirmed the award of compensation in the drainage case.
This case involved a dispute between Broadway-Hale Stores and the Retail Clerks Union over whether a collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of a proposed five-cent hourly wage increase after negotiations failed. The union sought arbitration following the employer's refusal, and an arbitrator awarded the increase to covered employees effective May 1, 1959. The trial court confirmed the award, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement's broad arbitration clause and the no-strike provision, that the arbitrator acted within his powers in deciding the merits, that the award was mutual, final, and definite, and that the state court had jurisdiction concurrent with federal courts under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc., rejecting narrower interpretations of arbitrability.
This case was a medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a two-day-old infant plaintiff who lost his glans penis as a result of a circumcision performed at defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The primary issue on appeal concerned the form of the res ipsa loquitur jury instruction given at plaintiffs' request, which stated that an inference of negligence arose from the events established by the evidence and placed certain burdens on defendants to rebut it. The court held that the instruction was erroneous because it failed to require the jury to first determine whether the factual conditions necessary for applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine had been proved. Nevertheless, under the specific facts of the case and in light of the other instructions given, the error was not prejudicial. The judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed.
This case involved consolidated personal injury actions arising from a rear-end car collision, where the jury returned verdicts for the defendant driver. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and that the verdict was against the law, and the trial court granted the motions, with later attempts to amend the minutes nunc pro tunc to clarify reliance on the evidence ground. The appellate court reversed the new trial order, holding that Code of Civil Procedure section 657 creates a conclusive presumption that the order was not based on insufficiency of the evidence when the minutes do not so specify, that the "against the law" ground does not support the order, and that the post-appeal nunc pro tunc correction was invalid as it would undermine the statute's purpose. The court noted that the evidence could support either outcome but the procedural requirements barred affirmance on the stated grounds.
In Budaeff v. Huber, landlords sued their tenants in ejectment to recover possession of leased property and unpaid rent after the tenants repeatedly failed to pay monthly rent due under a five-year lease for a rooming house in San Francisco. The trial court entered judgment for the landlords, and the tenants appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of a proper rent demand, waiver of the right to terminate, bad faith by the landlords, and defects in the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings of adequate demands and no waiver, the complaint stated a cause of action, any pleading uncertainties were cured at trial, and there was no showing of landlord bad faith or improper exclusion of evidence.
Willie James was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery for assaulting a victim and taking his wallet and coin purse. On appeal, he argued that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of a prior similar robbery to show common scheme or design, which the trial court struck with an admonition to the jury, and that cross-examination about a prior misdemeanor conviction involving another wallet was improper. The court affirmed the conviction and denial of a new trial, reasoning that the evidence of guilt was strong, any error in the stricken testimony was not prejudicial under the applicable harmless-error standard, the defendant opened the door to questions about the prior incident by his own testimony, and the trial judge had considered the issues on the motion for new trial.