Macklin Fleming

In McCourtney v. Cory, surviving spouses of deceased judges sued the California State Controller seeking a declaratory judgment that their retirement allowances under the Judges’ Retirement Law should continue for life rather than terminate upon remarriage, arguing that differing statutory provisions for other surviving spouses created an unconstitutional restraint on marriage and violated equal protection and due process. The trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that the remarriage-termination clauses did not impose a genuine barrier to marriage and that the Legislature had a rational basis for distinguishing among categories of surviving spouses—such as those of judges dying before eligibility for retirement benefits or those under deferred retirement—based on differing needs and benefit structures. It concluded that any resulting classifications were permissible under the state and federal constitutions and that challenges to benefit disparities should be directed to the Legislature.

civil rightsfamily lawlabor & employment

The case involved a class action by bank customers challenging Security Pacific National Bank's practice of imposing a service charge (initially $3, later $4) for processing checks written on accounts with insufficient funds, whether the bank paid or returned the check. Plaintiffs argued that the charge was an unlawful penalty or liquidated damages under former Civil Code section 1670, based on an alleged implied covenant in the account agreement not to write NSF checks. The trial court granted a nonsuit and directed verdict for the bank after finding no such covenant existed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that signature cards and incorporated statutes treated overdrafts as requests for credit rather than breaches of contract, and plaintiffs failed to prove any industry custom or agreement prohibiting NSF checks, so no penalty analysis under the statute was needed.

business & regulatory

In Kinsler v. Superior Court, a wife challenged trial court orders in a marital dissolution proceeding after her husband died following entry of judgments dissolving the marriage status but before resolution of reserved property division and support issues. The trial court had concluded that the death abated the action and vacated its prior interim orders on property and support. The Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a writ petition and held that the husband's death did not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the remaining issues because a final judgment on marital status had already been entered with jurisdiction expressly reserved, requiring substitution of the husband's estate as a party to proceed on those matters.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the City of Los Angeles could offset a police officer's nonservice-connected disability pension payments by the amount of a later workers' compensation award for a back injury. Donald Wesley, retired in 1972 with a pension paid from the city's general fund, received a $3,780 workers' compensation award in 1978 for a 1971 service-connected injury; the city then suspended pension payments until the offset was satisfied. Wesley petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing that the city charter's offset provision conflicted with Labor Code section 3751 and applied only to awards for the same injury. The court affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that the offset was permissible because the pension fund consisted solely of city contributions (not employee deductions) and the charter language allowed offsets against all nonservice pensions regardless of whether the injuries matched.

labor & employment

In Reyes v. Municipal Court, the petitioner was charged under Penal Code section 647(b) with soliciting prostitution from an undercover officer and sought extensive pretrial discovery after a hung jury, including names and addresses of other arrestees from the same night and complaints or personnel records regarding the officer's conduct to support an entrapment defense. The municipal court granted limited discovery of information tied directly to the petitioner's arrest, such as his own statements, officer identities, and percipient witnesses, but denied the broader requests. The Court of Appeal upheld this ruling, finding the additional discovery requests speculative and lacking plausible justification, with privacy interests of third parties outweighing any potential benefit, and deeming the complaints against the officer an irrelevant fishing expedition. The court emphasized that discovery motions require timeliness, specificity, and a showing that the information would promote a fair trial without undue burden.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether contractors who built an electrical transmission line for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owed California sales and use taxes on materials purchased for the project. The State Board of Equalization initially advised that no tax was due on above-ground components because they qualified as tax-exempt sales of personal property to the United States, but after courts ruled that permanently installed transmission lines are improvements to real property, the Board assessed $212,000 in tax plus $179,000 in interest. The court upheld collection of the tax itself, reasoning that the lines were real property under applicable law and that contractors with the United States received no unconstitutional discrimination, but it ordered refund of the interest because the taxpayers had reasonably relied on the Board's earlier erroneous administrative ruling.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Clemons v. Western Photo Camera Hut, a consumer filed a class action under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act alleging that a camera store used deceptive advertising by offering "free" prizes and discounted film developing services that required recipients to sign contracts and pay fees, in violation of statutes prohibiting misleading prize promotions and unfair sales practices. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to halt the practices before the class was certified or notified. The trial court denied the request on procedural grounds, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that consumer class actions require adjudication of class certification and notification issues before addressing substantive merits, as a preliminary injunction necessarily involves a preliminary determination of those merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a property dispute arising after four Los Angeles Episcopal parishes seceded from the Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA) over doctrinal issues including the ordination of women and interpretation of the Nicene Creed. The local churches retained possession of property titled in their own names, while the Diocese and PECUSA sued to obtain title and control, asserting claims under hierarchical church governance, implied trust, and express trust theories. The trial court ruled for the general church organizations, holding that the property was held for the benefit of the Diocese and PECUSA. On appeal, the court began its analysis with the presumption under state law that the holder of legal title owns the full beneficial interest, which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence, and examined whether the general church's theories could rebut that presumption.

religious libertyproperty

The case concerned a wrongful death lawsuit following a 1975 train collision at a railroad crossing in Oxnard, California, in which the jury found the decedent, Southern Pacific, and the State each one-third at fault, assessed total damages at $75,000, and found Southern Pacific guilty of willful misconduct (though not warranting punitive damages). Southern Pacific paid the full judgment and sought contribution from the State for its share, but the State contended that willful misconduct barred any right to contribution from a party guilty only of ordinary negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a joint tortfeasor found guilty of willful misconduct remains entitled to contribution or partial indemnification from a concurrent tortfeasor guilty of ordinary negligence. The core reasoning was that California's adoption of comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab had eliminated the prior distinction between ordinary negligence and willful misconduct for allocating liability and contribution among joint tortfeasors, except where intentional injury justifying punitive damages is involved; as a result, the court modified the contribution award to $25,000 to reflect the parties' equal shares of fault.

torts & liability

In this case, two 50% shareholders of an artists' management corporation disagreed over its future after one filed a certificate of election to wind up and dissolve under Corporations Code section 1900. The other shareholder and the corporation elected under section 2000 to purchase the moving shareholder's shares at fair value to avoid dissolution, leading to court-supervised appraisal proceedings that produced a majority valuation of $355,000 based on liquidation value (with possible going-concern sale). The trial court confirmed that valuation, required the purchasing party to be designated, stayed dissolution pending timely payment, and denied the moving shareholder's requests for a higher going-concern value and prejudgment interest from the valuation date. On appeal, the court upheld the statutory liquidation standard, the finality of the majority appraisal, the lack of interest (as shareholder rights continued until purchase), and the order to specify the purchaser, while vacating the stay effective after the decision unless payment is made.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Mary Olivarez's eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits under California's Medicaid program after she transferred income-producing property to her children without consideration and later had it reconveyed on county advice to meet eligibility rules. The superior court denied a writ of mandate to compel continued benefits after the property's value rose above exemption limits, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that estoppel did not apply because any potential injury resulted from Olivarez's own initial transfer rather than county conduct, which had temporarily enabled her benefits, and she became ineligible due to the property's increased assessed value exceeding the $25,000 exemption and $1,500 reserve limit. The opinion noted but did not resolve challenges to the state's transfer-of-assets rule under federal Medicaid requirements.

healthcarepropertyfederal power

The case concerned whether nonvoted special assessments levied on real property to repay bonds for local parking improvements fell within the 1 percent ad valorem tax limitation imposed by article XIII A of the California Constitution, and whether that limitation could be applied to existing bond obligations. The court held that the assessments were not subject to the limitation and that the Board of Supervisors was required to continue levying them. It reasoned that true special assessments directly benefiting the assessed property are distinct from general taxes, and that removing the sole source of repayment would impair the obligation of contracts in violation of the federal Constitution. The decision directed the Board to levy the assessments outside the 1 percent cap.

taxesproperty

In Mirolla v. Mendez, a judgment creditor levied execution on a debtor's truck after the debtor defaulted on a settlement payment for selling a stolen vehicle. The debtor, a truck driver, claimed an exemption under Code of Civil Procedure section 690.4, arguing that an unrecorded lien held by the seller reduced the truck's value below the exempt amount. The trial court granted the exemption and released the vehicle, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The court reasoned that under the California and Oregon Uniform Commercial Codes, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to a judgment creditor's execution lien, so the unrecorded lien could not be used to calculate the exemption, and the creditor's paramount lien remained intact despite the vehicle's release pending appeal.

procedureproperty

The case involved a motorcyclist injured in a collision with a vehicle backing out of a driveway on a steep hill in Glendale, where limited visibility prevented him from seeing the other car in time despite a posted speed limit and an advisory sign recommending slowing to 15 miles per hour. The plaintiff sued the city for failing to adequately warn of the dangerous road condition under Government Code provisions on public entity liability. After a jury found the city 56 percent at fault and awarded damages (later reduced by settlement with the other driver), the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held there was substantial evidence that the existing sign was insufficiently clear or placed to warn of the visibility hazard, supporting liability, and rejected arguments of juror misconduct in the verdict. The reasoning centered on statutory rules allowing recovery when a public entity has notice of a dangerous condition not apparent to users exercising due care and fails to provide necessary warnings.

torts & liability

The case involved Lawrence Khoury, who was charged with a misdemeanor lewd act in public under Penal Code section 647(a) after his arrest in Griffith Park. After arraignment and release on his own recognizance, Khoury did not appear at trial settings despite his attorney's assertion of authorization to proceed in his absence under Penal Code sections 977(a) and 1043(e); the municipal court ordered his personal appearance due to an identity issue, issued a bench warrant when he failed to comply, and took the matter off calendar. Khoury petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to recall the warrant and dismiss the case for violation of the 45-day speedy trial rule under Penal Code section 1382. The superior court denied the writ, finding the municipal court acted within its discretion under section 1043(e) and that Khoury's own conduct caused the delay. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court properly required personal appearance when no valid waiver was presented for review and identity was disputed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Insurance Company of North America (INA) seeking to block discovery of attorney-client communications from a 1977 meeting where outside counsel advised INA on asbestos-related insurance coverage liability. GAP, suing INA for declaratory relief on coverage, argued the privilege was waived because two officers from INA's parent holding company and a sister subsidiary attended. The court held that the communications remained confidential and privileged under Evidence Code section 952, as the attendees were not outsiders but were present to further INA's interests or the consultation's purpose in a corporate affiliate structure. It issued a writ of prohibition barring the superior court from ordering production of the meeting materials or related testimony, while noting that work product from the law firm was separately protected.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a California corporation, E.I.C., Inc., that filed a cross-complaint in a California superior court action alleging that a Virginia bank, its officer, and others conspired to defraud it in connection with a 1972 Kentucky real estate purchase that later led to a deficiency judgment against E.I.C. The trial court quashed service of process on the Virginia defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and E.I.C. appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defendants' limited contacts with California—such as mailing a letter of credit to E.I.C. in Beverly Hills and other out-of-state transactions—were neither substantial nor sufficiently related to the fraud claims to satisfy due process requirements for either general or limited jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10. The court reasoned that the defendants had no continuous presence in California and that the forum contacts did not give rise to the asserted causes of action, citing precedents like World-Wide Volkswagen and Internat. Shoe.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant charged with possession of marijuana for sale after deputies stopped his vehicle for traffic violations, smelled marijuana, and searched a paper bag on the front seat without a warrant, leading to his guilty plea and sentencing. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence and the conviction, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an ordinary paper bag used for perishables rather than personal effects. It also upheld the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court had improperly considered the defendant's pre-1976 marijuana convictions, which statutes required to be disregarded after two years.

criminal lawprocedure

In Rose v. Medtronics, Inc., the plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a cardiac pacemaker for personal injuries after his device was recalled due to a potential defect, seeking to represent a class of approximately 4,000 others who underwent replacement surgeries. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the class action allegations, allowing only the individual claim to proceed. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to allege facts establishing the required community of interest for a class action. The reasoning centered on the predominance of individual issues—including varying injuries, damages, causation factors involving physicians, statutes of limitations, and differing state laws on product liability and warranties—over any common questions, making class treatment inappropriate for this type of mass personal injury claim.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a conservator, John Bolen, who petitioned under Probate Code section 1903 for a citation ordering the law firm Zetterberg & Zetterberg to deliver a will and related documents prepared for conservatee Florence Du Nah. The probate court dismissed the citation without determining Du Nah's testamentary capacity, ruling that the will was not estate property to which the conservator was entitled, that the conservatee was currently incompetent to request its return, and that the firm had a duty to retain it for safekeeping. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the will did not qualify as an "instrument in writing belonging to the conservatee" under the statute and that the conservator lacked possession rights. The court also modified the award of "necessary expenses" to the citee by excluding attorneys' fees, applying the general rule against fee recovery absent express statutory authorization.

family lawpropertyprocedure