John W. Holmdahl

The case involved the conviction of defendant Librado Cabrera Fortanel for one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child by force under Penal Code section 288(b), based on an incident with an eight-year-old neighbor in the summer of 1986. On appeal, Fortanel contended that the information's allegation of the offense occurring "on or about June 1, 1986 through July 31, 1986," without a more precise date, denied him due process by impairing his ability to present an alibi defense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, reasoning that Penal Code section 955 permits the time of the offense to be alleged generally unless it is a material ingredient, that the two-month period provided adequate notice, and that the jury was properly instructed to agree on a specific act within that period, consistent with Supreme Court precedent in People v. Wrigley.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a property owner's challenge to the County of Contra Costa's tax assessment of a 17-acre parcel zoned for agricultural use but designated in the local general plan for future administrative offices. After the owner's father died in 1983, triggering reassessment, the assessor valued the land at over $5 million based on its potential commercial use, disregarding the owner's pending application for agricultural preserve status under the Williamson Act to restrict it to farming. The Assessment Appeals Board upheld a high valuation, the trial court affirmed, and the owner appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that Revenue and Taxation Code sections 402.1 and 402.5 require the assessor to consider enforceable restrictions such as zoning and agricultural preserves, with a rebuttable presumption that such restrictions are permanent and limit value to the restricted use; the matter was remanded to the AAB for proceedings applying the correct valuation method.

propertytaxes

This case concerns a malicious prosecution action filed by attorney Betty Aronow against attorneys LaCroix and Schumb, stemming from a long chain of related lawsuits that originated with a 1967 medical malpractice suit by Roscoe Bailey. The trial court entered judgment for Aronow after finding the required elements of favorable termination and lack of probable cause. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered entry of judgment for the defendants, holding that the underlying action (Bailey II) did not satisfy the favorable-termination requirement for malicious prosecution because it involved multiple theories of recovery and was resolved by dismissal after demurrer without a determination on the merits.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an excess insurance carrier, Continental Casualty Company, suing a primary insurance carrier, Royal Insurance of America, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair claims practices under the Insurance Code. The dispute arose after a gas explosion led to a liability lawsuit against their shared insured, where Royal allegedly rejected reasonable settlement demands within its $500,000 policy limits, forcing Continental to contribute an additional $900,000 to settle the claims and assume the defense. The jury returned a verdict for Continental on multiple grounds, including failure to attempt good-faith settlement when liability was clear and breach of the duty to defend, and the trial court added damages for fees and interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the primary carrier's obligations run to the excess carrier through equitable subrogation and that the record supported the jury's findings on breach and causation.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Frazier v. County of Sonoma, a motorcyclist sued Sonoma County for injuries from a head-on collision, alleging that the roads near the Bohemian Highway and River Boulevard intersection were in a dangerous condition due to inadequate traffic markings and other features, in violation of the California Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted the county's motion for nonsuit after the plaintiff's case, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that under Government Code section 830.4, the absence of regulatory traffic control markings does not constitute a dangerous condition that can support public entity liability, and the plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of a dangerous condition claim. The decision focused on statutory definitions and the plaintiff's burden of proof without addressing other elements like notice or causation once the dangerous condition threshold was not met.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Remington, who at age 17 stole multiple firearms and other weapons in Solano County, used a shotgun to carjack a van in Contra Costa County, murdered a Solano County deputy sheriff during a traffic stop, and fired at pursuing officers while fleeing into Yolo County. On appeal, Remington challenged his murder conviction due to alleged errors in jury instructions and sought reversal of four aggravated assault convictions plus a firearms theft conviction on grounds that those offenses occurred outside the trial county of Solano. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full. It found no instructional error on the murder count and held that Remington had waived any venue or vicinage objection to the other convictions by failing to raise the issue in superior court, applying the implied-waiver rule from People v. Lilienthal even where a federal constitutional dimension was asserted.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, homeowner Julian La Bato sued State Farm after it denied coverage under an all-risks homeowner’s policy for the loss of part of his backyard that fell into Las Trampas Creek during a storm; the policy contained exclusions for earth movement and water damage, and covered only structures, not land itself. La Bato claimed breach of contract, bad faith, and other theories after State Farm refused to pay for remedial work like riprap and a retaining wall. The trial court entered judgment for La Bato following a jury verdict, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the jury instructions misstated California law on concurrent causation by directing the jury to find coverage if any proximate cause was a covered peril rather than identifying the predominant cause as required by Garvey v. State Farm. The court remanded for further proceedings on whether State Farm was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved homeowners who constructed a sport court and other improvements on a scenic easement on their property, which the Town of Woodside had acquired as a condition of subdivision approval and which was required to remain in its natural state. The town sued to enforce the easement, and the homeowners cross-complained against their title insurer for failing to disclose the easement and provide a defense under the policy; the trial court initially allowed some modifications but was reversed on appeal with directions to order full removal of the encroachments. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the title insurer on the cross-complaint, dismissed the homeowners' appeal against the town as frivolous because it raised no new legal basis for retaining the improvements, and imposed sanctions requiring payment of the town's costs plus the average cost of processing a civil appeal.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a homeowners' association suing the developer and subcontractors of a townhouse development for damages from various construction defects, focusing on drainage issues. The trial court found that the drainage defects were patent, subject to a four-year statute of limitations that had expired since the project's completion in 1975, and that the developer's repair efforts did not toll the limitations period for drainage problems as no such repairs occurred after 1976. The court also noted that even if the defects were latent, the association was or should have been aware of the issues by 1979. On appeal, the judgment for the defendants was affirmed, rejecting the argument that the statute of limitations should apply uniformly to a single cause of action rather than separately to different defect areas.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In People v. Davis, the defendant, while in jail, solicited an undercover officer to commit two murders in exchange for payment and provided details about the intended victims and the crimes. He was charged with and convicted by a jury of two counts of solicitation of murder under Penal Code section 653f(b), receiving concurrent six-year prison sentences on each count. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of corroboration, the admission of a tape-recorded conversation, and the validity of two separate convictions arising from what he claimed was a single act of solicitation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the evidence supported two distinct solicitations because the defendant explicitly agreed to two separate killings with different victims, potentially at different times and places, and that multiple punishments were appropriate under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Hines, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree burglary and two counts of receiving stolen property after burglarizing two houses in Mendocino County with an accomplice and possessing items taken from the homes. The court vacated the receiving stolen property convictions because a defendant cannot be convicted of both burglary and receiving the same stolen property. It affirmed the burglary convictions, including the one involving a second house on the same property that was fully furnished and occasionally used as a guest or rental unit but unoccupied at the time of the crime, holding that the house qualified as an inhabited dwelling under Penal Code sections 459 and 460. The court also rejected the challenge to the jury instruction permitting an inference of guilt from conscious possession of the stolen loot.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved claims by Mary Maloney and her minor son against American Pharmaceutical Company (APC II), a New Jersey corporation, for injuries allegedly caused by diethylstilbestrol (DES) manufactured by its predecessor, a defunct Delaware corporation (APC I). The plaintiffs asserted theories including strict liability, negligent manufacture, and breach of warranty, seeking to hold APC II liable as a successor. The trial court granted summary judgment to APC II, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that successor liability does not apply because APC II did not agree to assume APC I's liabilities, the asset purchase did not amount to a merger or continuation of the seller, and there was no fraudulent transfer of assets; APC II acquired only a small fraction of APC I's leftover items, never manufactured or sold prescription drugs or DES, and operated separately.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an employee of a Sears subsidiary who sued the independent claims administrator (Crawford & Company) and related parties for unreasonably refusing to pay workers’ compensation benefits, seeking damages including for resulting medical expenses. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend based on the exclusive remedy doctrine, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The court held that such claims against independent administrators of self-insured employers are barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions (Labor Code sections 3600-3602), focusing on the nature of the activity—delay or refusal to pay benefits—rather than the defendant’s status. It reasoned that the Act provides the sole forum (the Appeals Board) and remedies (including a 10% penalty under section 5814) for disputes over compensation payments, to prevent disintegration of the workers’ compensation system through separate civil suits.

labor & employmentprocedure

Celotex Corporation, as successor to an asbestos products manufacturer, filed suit in California superior court seeking declaratory relief to determine whether respondent insurers were obligated to defend or pay asbestos-related property damage claims under policies issued to the corporate parent of its predecessor. The trial court stayed the action on forum non conveniens grounds because substantially similar declaratory judgment and indemnity actions involving the same parties and policies were already pending and consolidated in federal district court in Ohio. On appeal, the court affirmed the stay, finding that the Ohio litigation addressed overlapping issues regarding the insurance policies and indemnity agreements, that California was not a more convenient forum for witnesses and evidence, and that the trial court retained jurisdiction to protect Celotex's interests if the Ohio cases did not fully resolve the claims.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant whose probation from prior drug sale convictions was revoked based on a new cocaine sale and failure to complete community service. The trial court sentenced him to an upper term of five years plus a one-year enhancement in the 1982 case, plus a consecutive eight-month term in the 1984 case. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court committed reversible error in its sentencing decisions. The appellate court affirmed the judgments but vacated the sentences, holding that the trial court had failed to properly apply and state reasons for its choices regarding probation denial, term selection, and consecutive sentencing under the applicable rules of court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ray C. Roden appealing the denial of his motion to vacate a post-judgment order continuing spousal support payments of $450 per month in a marital dissolution proceeding originally filed in Humboldt County Superior Court. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the wife's attorney had not complied with Civil Code section 4809, which requires that notice of post-judgment modification proceedings be served directly on the party rather than on the attorney of record. The core reasoning was that the statute's plain language mandates personal service to prevent problems arising from stale attorney-client relationships in family law cases, that no valid waiver of the requirement occurred based on disputed oral communications, and that the resulting support order was therefore invalid for lack of proper notice.

family lawprocedure

This case involved an insurance company's request for declaratory relief to determine the extent of its obligations under the uninsured motorist coverage of an auto policy after an insured passenger suffered injuries in a multi-vehicle accident involving three uninsured drivers. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the insurer's liability was capped at the $15,000 per-person policy limit for a single accident, rejecting the argument that separate limits should apply for each negligent uninsured motorist. The core reasoning was that the policy's limit-of-liability clause expressly tied recovery to damages from one accident irrespective of the number of vehicles, the parties had stipulated that only one accident occurred, and the coverage satisfied the minimum statutory requirements of Insurance Code section 11580.2 without requiring additional payments based on multiple tortfeasors.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by plaintiff David Heninger to an ordinance adopted by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors that authorized permits for alternative private sewage disposal systems on single-family residential properties. The trial court granted a peremptory writ of mandate, finding that the Board had violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting a negative declaration instead of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR), and it also awarded attorney's fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that CEQA required an EIR because substantial evidence in the record supported a fair argument that the ordinance amendment might cause significant environmental effects, such as degradation of water quality or groundwater resources. The court noted that the Board, as a local agency, was required to prepare an EIR for any project that may have a significant effect on the environment, and the evidence regarding potential impacts met that threshold under the applicable guidelines and precedents.

environmentprocedure

This case concerned whether a licensed clinical social worker who voluntarily provided a written declaration containing confidential psychotherapist-patient communications and diagnoses could be sued for violating his former patient's constitutional right to privacy, even though the declaration was filed in a court proceeding involving the patient's child visitation rights. The trial court had sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2, granted absolute immunity for statements made in judicial proceedings. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, holding that the patient's state constitutional right of privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1) creates an exception to that statutory immunity when a psychotherapist discloses privileged information without first claiming the privilege under Evidence Code sections 1014 and 1015 and seeking a judicial determination on whether disclosure is appropriate. The court reasoned that the psychotherapist-patient relationship implicates a fundamental privacy interest recognized in prior California decisions, and the statutory privilege procedures already supply a reasonable mechanism to balance that interest against the need for evidence in litigation.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a community college biology instructor whose full-time position was eliminated due to declining enrollment and budget cuts, leading her to petition for partial reinstatement based on seniority claims against a colleague and for a writ directing the district to issue her limited credentials to teach math and chemistry. The trial court denied both petitions for administrative and traditional mandamus, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Education Code section 87414 establishes a single seniority date based on initial hire, giving the colleague priority, and that the instructor's credential application on the March 15 deadline was untimely under precedents requiring earlier submission to allow processing before layoff notices. It further held that the district was not required to consider the late application or reassign her despite her qualifications arguments.

labor & employment