John G. Gabbert

This case involved claims for wrongful deaths and personal injuries from a 1968 airplane crash near Las Cruces, New Mexico, allegedly caused by a defective fuel system in a Beechcraft plane manufactured by defendant Beech Aircraft Corp. The adult plaintiffs filed suit in 1972, more than three years after the accident, and the trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed their claims as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissals, holding that the discovery rule applies to toll the limitations period when the defendant has fraudulently concealed material facts about the product's defect. The core reasoning was that the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the concealed defect, and the third amended complaint adequately alleged such concealment through misrepresentations to the FAA and failure to warn users.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was an appeal in an interpleader action over ownership of $8,576.08 remaining in escrow after the sale of a restaurant-cocktail lounge and transfer of its liquor license from Kric Enterprises (seller) to King’s Row Restaurant (buyer). The trial court found the escrow had not closed under its terms, so title to the funds remained with the buyer, and after escrow fees it awarded the balance to the United States to satisfy tax claims against the buyer. The appellate court reversed, holding that Business and Professions Code sections 24070-24082 create a comprehensive regulatory scheme for liquor license transfers that requires the purchase price to be held in escrow for the seller’s creditors and establishes their payment priorities once the license transfer is approved, overriding general escrow law on when title passes. The court therefore directed the funds to the seller’s creditors (Doyle and Bank of America) rather than the buyer or the United States.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

The case involved the State of California seeking a writ of prohibition to halt a negligence lawsuit by American Indemnity Company, which sought damages for arson committed by prisoners released from a state facility under rehabilitative programs. The superior court had overruled the State's demurrer based on sovereign immunity under Government Code section 845.8(a), allowing claims alleging ministerial negligence in applying release rules and regulations. The Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that the statute provides broad immunity for any injury resulting from decisions to release prisoners or determine the terms of release, without distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts. This interpretation follows from County of Sacramento v. Superior Court and aims to prevent liability fears from inhibiting prisoner rehabilitation efforts, leaving the insurer to bear the risk as a member of the general public.

criminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between the East San Bernardino County Water District and the City of San Bernardino over payments due under a 1958 Joint Powers Agreement for shared sewer treatment facilities and trunk lines. The District sought arbitration on whether the City's rate increases were reasonable and whether the District was entitled to credits for protested overpayments, while the City argued the payment formula was fixed and not subject to arbitration. The trial court terminated the arbitration proceedings, finding no arbitrable issues existed under the agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the agreement's broad arbitration clause covered controversies over interpretation and application of its terms, and that courts should not prematurely resolve such questions instead of the arbitrators.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Mark Allen Johnson, a Marine, who was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree murder in the killing of his wife. Johnson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting his confessions and admissions because they were involuntary under the totality of circumstances, that he had not been properly advised of his Miranda rights before multiple psychiatric interviews, and that statements made during interviews while under the influence of sodium amytal were inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that the sodium amytal-induced statements and related evidence should not have been admitted, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the use of the truth serum rendered the statements unreliable and obtained in violation of the defendant's rights, despite repeated warnings that the interviews could be used against him.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim by William Spann. Spann was injured after his vehicle struck a pedestrian and then a guardrail, and he sought coverage under his policy for damages caused by the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The court decided that the injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle, affirming the judgment enjoining arbitration. The core reasoning was that Spann, as the insured, had the burden to prove coverage but provided no evidence of a causal connection between the uninsured motorist's use of his vehicle and the accident.

torts & liability

In this juvenile court case, a petition was filed alleging that 17-year-old Neil G. possessed marijuana and Benzedrine. After the initial hearing was continued and then dismissed without prejudice due to the unavailability of witnesses, a new identical petition was filed beyond the statutory time limits in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 657 and 700.5. The minor sought to prohibit further proceedings on the refiled petition. The court held that a juvenile petition dismissed without a hearing on the merits may be refiled as an original proceeding even after the time limits have expired. The reasoning drew on the absence of any prohibition in the juvenile court law, analogies to adult criminal procedure allowing refiling, and the policy of providing prompt hearings while permitting refiling to avoid barring valid cases.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

This case arose from a 1970 car accident in which a minor child was struck and injured, prompting claims by the child’s parents for their own emotional distress and resulting physical injuries after witnessing or learning of the event. The insurer had already paid the $25,000 per-person policy limit for the child’s injuries but filed for declaratory relief to determine whether the parents’ claims counted as additional “bodily injuries” that would invoke the $50,000 per-occurrence limit. The trial court found that both parents had suffered bodily injury in the form of severe fright, shock, emotional distress, and physical consequences directly caused by the accident. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy term “bodily injury” includes emotional distress producing physical harm even without direct physical contact, so the higher aggregate limit applied when multiple persons sustained such injuries in one occurrence.

torts & liability

The case involved a court-appointed attorney who represented an indigent defendant charged with heroin possession and who filed two writ petitions in the Court of Appeal challenging the trial court's denial of pretrial motions. After the superior court dismissed the charges, it awarded the attorney $400 but excluded compensation for the writ work under Penal Code section 987.2. The attorney sought a writ of mandate to require payment for those services. The Court of Appeal held that the statute requires reasonable compensation because the attorney was representing the client in a criminal proceeding when pursuing the writs during the pretrial stage, and the 1967 amendment to the statute broadened its coverage beyond mere defense at trial. The court directed the superior court to exercise its discretion in setting compensation based on the nature and extent of the services.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with robbery and assault with a deadly weapon arising from an incident at a restaurant and a subsequent shooting; a jury convicted him of second-degree robbery but acquitted on the assault count. On appeal, the defendant challenged the San Bernardino County jury selection process (which used voter registration lists), the validity of a search warrant for his motel room (citing a prior warrantless entry by police and an allegedly insufficient supporting affidavit), and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that use of voter lists for jury panels was permissible absent evidence of systematic exclusion of a cognizable group, the search warrant was supported by probable cause and not tainted, and any comments by the prosecutor did not amount to prejudicial misconduct.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim for damage to real property from flooding allegedly caused by the defendant's diversion of a wash near Blythe, California. After a bifurcated trial, a jury found the defendant liable but had not yet addressed damages when the defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; the trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The court held that the appeal was premature and must be dismissed because, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 629, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict cannot properly be made or appealed until all issues, including damages, have been tried and a final judgment entered. The core reasoning was that the one-final-judgment rule and the purposes of bifurcation—to conserve resources by avoiding unnecessary damages trials—preclude intermediate appeals that could lead to multiple appeals, delays, and frustration of the statute's goals; any change to permit such appeals would require legislative action.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

In People v. Iverson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of forcible rape, rape by threat of bodily harm, and kidnapping after he entered a 15-year-old girl's apartment at night, threatened her with a knife, drove her to another location, and engaged in multiple acts of intercourse. The trial court sentenced him on the rape counts and stayed the others, but the defendant appealed, challenging the multiple rape convictions, sufficiency of evidence for force, jury instructions on deadly weapons, and the kidnapping conviction under the Daniels test. The Court of Appeal affirmed the rape convictions, finding three separate acts of intercourse and sufficient evidence of force through the knife and threats, but reversed the kidnapping conviction because the jury was not properly instructed on whether the asportation substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the rapes.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. McManis, the defendant was charged with murder after a bar altercation in which he chased the victim outside with a pool cue, retrieved a revolver upon seeing the victim with what appeared to be a weapon, and fatally shot the victim in the head while the victim was entering a truck; the jury convicted him of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the voluntary manslaughter verdict, that an erroneous jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter was not prejudicial, and that a discovery violation did not require reversal. However, the court reversed the judgment as to sentence because the trial court had been unconstitutionally prevented from considering probation. The core reasoning focused on the factual record showing the defendant acted in a heat of passion or imperfect self-defense without malice, combined with harmless-error analysis for the procedural claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the division of assets in a marital dissolution proceeding between Francis J. Karlin and Cathryn M. Karlin, with appeals challenging the trial court's treatment of a military pension, the family residence, government bonds, a note receivable, a savings plan, and shares of stock. The court held that 50 percent of the military retirement pay was community property because the right vested during the marriage after 22 years of service, including 11 years while married; the residence was community property based on the pleadings; the bonds and note were community assets as tracing to separate property was inadequate to rebut the presumption; and the savings plan and stock, which had been omitted, must be added to the division as undisputed community property. The reasoning centered on the principle that matured and vested pension rights earned during marriage constitute divisible community property, while assets acquired during marriage are presumed community unless properly traced otherwise, and appellate courts may modify judgments to include clear community assets under Code of Civil Procedure section 909.

family lawproperty

In Buck v. Dahlgren, a real estate developer who borrowed funds at 10 percent interest secured by a deed of trust on property sued the lender to recover alleged usurious interest, treble damages, and to set aside a trustee's sale after default and foreclosure. The trial court entered judgment for the lender. The court held the borrower was estopped from claiming usury because he had proposed the loan terms and extensions, made knowingly false representations about his ability and intent to repay to induce further advances and delays, and increased the debt while aware the security was worth far less than the principal, whereas the lender was inexperienced in such transactions.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Cucamonga County Water District, a public entity, annexing part of an area served by Southwest Water Company and Rochester Water Company and seeking to install duplicating water facilities under Public Utilities Code chapter 8.5, which requires payment of just compensation for any resulting damage to private utilities' property. The trial court awarded Rochester $244,400 and Southwest $40,000 in compensation, but did not transfer title of Rochester's system to the District. On appeal, the court upheld the constitutionality of the 1965 statute mandating compensation for such duplication, which had previously been allowed without payment, but held that the District was entitled to acquire Rochester's operating system upon paying the full just compensation value as provided in section 1504, based on the jury's valuation and the District's resolution.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Stilson sued Moulton-Niguel Water District and supervising engineer Boyle Engineering after falling from a 30-foot steel column during construction of water tanks under a contract between his employer American Bridge and Moulton-Niguel; the fall resulted from American Bridge's negligence in erecting and supporting the column. The trial court granted a directed verdict on liability and the jury awarded damages (later reduced by remittitur). On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that no agency relationship existed but that Moulton-Niguel and Boyle owed a nondelegable duty to take special precautions against the peculiar risks of the work, which they breached by failing to ensure such precautions were taken.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a union member's lawsuit in state superior court alleging that labor unions and their officers discriminated against him by arbitrarily refusing to dispatch him from union hiring halls to jobs. The unions demurred on grounds that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the conduct was arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act and thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ of prohibition barring the superior court from proceeding, holding that the claims concerned interference with employment relations and were preempted under federal law as established in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon and Plumbers' Union v. Borden. The court distinguished Vaca v. Sipes, which allows state jurisdiction for certain fair representation claims arising in post-discharge grievance procedures, as inapplicable to hiring hall dispatch disputes. It also rejected other cited authorities as inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent on preemption.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved defendant Charlene Hemmer, who was charged with grand theft and unlawful taking of a vehicle after leasing a car for five days in 1969, failing to return it on time, and using it for months across multiple locations before its recovery. A jury convicted her of grand theft under Penal Code sections 484-487, leading to probation with jail time; she appealed, challenging the denial of her new trial motion and raising issues with jury instructions on statutory presumptions of intent to embezzle from Vehicle Code section 10855 and Penal Code section 484(b). The majority opinion found reversible error in the instructions, which improperly treated the presumptions and removed the question of intent from the jury, while a dissent argued the errors were harmless given other correct instructions and overwhelming evidence of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a land sale where the seller (Middlebrook-Anderson Co.) subordinated its purchase-money deeds of trust on 28 lots to a construction loan obtained by the buyers from Southwest Savings & Loan, with the loan funds intended for building improvements; after the lender disbursed $300,000 for non-construction purposes and the buyers defaulted, the lender foreclosed, and the seller sued the lender and escrow agent for remedies including restoration of lien priority and damages on theories such as breach of duty and third-party beneficiary status. The trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed all seven causes of action. The appellate court reversed the dismissal as to the first four causes of action, holding that the complaint adequately alleged facts supporting a potential duty owed by the lender to the seller based on the lender's knowledge of the subordination and the seller's reliance on proper use of funds, while affirming dismissal of the remaining claims against the escrow agent. The court directed the trial court to allow the seller to proceed on the valid claims.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure