California Court of Appeal, 1st District — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal · 1984-05-31 · cited 16×
The case involved Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat), a company participating in an international satellite consortium, challenging California Franchise Tax Board assessments that used a special apportionment formula to allocate a portion of Comsat's income to the state based on the value of orbiting satellites and related revenues. Comsat paid the disputed taxes for 1970-1972 and sued for a refund, arguing the formula improperly included extraterritorial assets and activities. After a trial on stipulated facts, the court ruled for Comsat and ordered the refund plus interest. The decision centered on whether the Board's formula complied with statutory requirements for fairly representing the taxpayer's in-state business activity under provisions like Revenue and Taxation Code sections 25120 et seq., including the use of standard property, payroll, and sales factors versus alternative methods.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
White v. Uniroyal, Inc.
California Court of Appeal · 1984-04-30 · cited 22×
The case consolidated personal injury and wrongful death actions by Teledyne employees (and a decedent's family) injured in a 1975 explosion and fire during UDMH chemical manufacturing at a Hollister plant. Plaintiffs sued Uniroyal, the purchaser under a sales agreement, on theories of direct negligence in operation and supervision plus liability for peculiar risk of harm, asserting Teledyne functioned as Uniroyal's independent contractor. The jury returned defense verdicts, finding Uniroyal not negligent on special verdict forms. On appeal, the court examined whether the contract created an employer-independent contractor relationship (versus a mere vendor-vendee arrangement) that could support peculiar-risk liability, the propriety of jury instructions on control and volunteer undertakings, and related evidentiary issues.
torts & liability
Alternatives for California Women, Inc. v. County of Contra Costa
California Court of Appeal · 1983-07-27 · cited 29×
The case concerned a Contra Costa County ordinance that restricted door-to-door soliciting to daylight hours, which a nonprofit organization (Alternatives for California Women) challenged as violating free speech protections under the U.S. and California Constitutions because it limited its charitable and political canvassing and fundraising activities. The trial court upheld the ordinance's constitutionality and denied injunctive relief. On appeal, after the county amended the ordinance to prohibit soliciting between sunset and sunrise, the court held the amended version unconstitutional on its face and as applied, reversing the judgment. The core reasoning was that the time-based ban was an overbroad restriction on protected speech that was not narrowly tailored to serve the county's interests, as less restrictive alternatives like honoring no-solicitation signs would suffice.
free speechcivil rights
Security Data, Inc. v. County of Contra Costa
California Court of Appeal · 1983-07-20 · cited 3×
The case involved a dispute over property tax assessments by Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek on computer components leased and installed by Security Data, Inc., a subsidiary of a national bank, in an office building. The county classified the equipment as real property fixtures subject to taxation for the years 1973-1976, leading to payments by the plaintiff, who then sought refunds on the grounds that the items were personal property owned by the bank and thus exempt under the state constitution and revenue code. After a trial focused on whether the components had been affixed as fixtures, the trial court found they were not permanently attached, the building was a general-purpose space not modified specifically for them, and they retained their character as personal property. The court entered judgment refunding approximately $60,000 in taxes plus interest. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and affirmed based on the findings that the equipment was removable without damage and not constructively affixed to the realty.
taxesproperty
People v. Thomas
California Court of Appeal · 1983-03-29 · cited 5×
The case involved defendant Robert Michael Thomas, who was arrested in possession of a car stolen in Sonoma County and charged there with vehicle theft and receiving stolen property. He moved under Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress statements made to police at arrest, a motion granted by the magistrate at preliminary hearing but denied after relitigation in superior court. The Court of Appeal ruled that section 1538.5 permits only one de novo relitigation in superior court, limited its review to the first superior court ruling, disregarded a second suppression hearing, and found no error in the denial of suppression. The court therefore affirmed the conviction for receiving stolen property.
criminal lawprocedure
Wallace v. Miller
California Court of Appeal · 1983-03-08 · cited 2×
The case involved plaintiffs who owned land adjacent to a rock quarry and sued to enjoin dynamite blasting there while also seeking damages for alleged harm from the activity. The trial court issued temporary restraining orders and a limited preliminary injunction but, after trial on the injunctive issues, denied permanent relief and dissolved the earlier orders. Defendants then moved under former Code of Civil Procedure section 535 to recover damages and attorneys' fees for the wrongful issuance of the restraining orders; the court granted the motions after finding liability and awarded specific sums to each defendant. The core reasoning was that the statute permitted recovery of damages sustained from the temporary orders once it was determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief.
procedurepropertytorts & liability