Joseph A. Rattigan

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved a challenge to a local superior court policy implementing Civil Code section 4607, which mandates prehearing mediation for child custody and visitation disputes in marital dissolution proceedings. Under the policy, if mediation failed to produce an agreement, the mediator was required to submit a recommendation to the court on custody or visitation, but the parties were prohibited from cross-examining the mediator. The court held that this policy was constitutionally invalid because it denied parties the opportunity to confront and examine the mediator whose recommendation could influence the court's decision on temporary custody and visitation. The core reasoning focused on the denial of due process protections in the mediation-to-recommendation process under the Family Law Act.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the County of San Mateo suing Robert Lee Booth to establish his paternity of a minor child and to obtain reimbursement for public assistance payments made under the AFDC program from April 1975 to October 1978. After a nonjury trial, the court declared Booth the father of the child and ordered him to reimburse the County $8,819.11 plus interest and costs. The court reasoned that Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350 permitted reimbursement for aid paid on behalf of the family, including payments made to a boarding home institution where the child resided, and rejected the statute of limitations defense.

family law

In People v. Gainer, the defendant, convicted of second-degree murder in 1978 and released on bail during his appeal, requested after the judgment was affirmed in 1981 that the trial court recall his sentence and resentence him under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to do so because more than 120 days had passed since commitment and there was no recommendation from the Director of Corrections or Board of Prison Terms, then ordered commitment and granted 39 days of custody credit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge to the denial of recall and resentencing, holding that a defendant has no standing to initiate proceedings under the statute, so the trial court's order was not appealable; it modified the custody credits to 42 days and affirmed the order as modified. The core reasoning was that the statute permits recall only on the court's own motion or upon official recommendation, consistent with prior precedent that defendants lack standing to seek such relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an insurance bad faith action filed in state court survived after the defendant removed it to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and the federal court later dismissed it without prejudice, without remanding it to state court. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming additional non-diverse defendants in the original state court action number, prompting the defendant to move to strike on the ground that the federal dismissal had terminated the case. The state court denied the motion, reasoning that the state action was merely suspended during the federal proceedings. The defendant petitioned for a writ to vacate the denial, stop discovery, and dismiss the action, relying on federal statutes providing that removal divests the state court of authority to proceed unless and until remand occurs. The opinion addresses the principal question of the action's survival under 28 U.S.C. sections 1446 and 1447 and the conditions attached to the federal dismissal order.

procedurefederal power

Georgia-Pacific Corporation sought coastal development permits from the California Coastal Commission to build four facilities, including a fence, helicopter pad, information center, and rock revetment, on its industrial lumber-processing property in the coastal zone at Fort Bragg. The Commission granted the permits but conditioned approval on Georgia-Pacific dedicating public shoreline access easements. Georgia-Pacific petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandamus to compel issuance of the permits without the conditions. The trial court granted the writ after reviewing the administrative record, concluding that the access conditions were not authorized under the California Coastal Act of 1976.

environmentproperty

The case involved Rudolph Pineiro, who was charged with murdering Larry Glenn after stabbing him during a confrontation at a hotel, where Pineiro believed Glenn had raped his wife. A jury convicted Pineiro of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and found true an allegation that he used a knife, leading to a probation order with a one-year jail term after a suspended prison sentence. On appeal, Pineiro challenged the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense and claimed prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments regarding his statements and reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the probation order, holding that the self-defense instructions properly placed the burden on the prosecution, that the prosecutor's remarks were fair comments on the evidence rather than improper personal opinions, and that any potential errors were either waived for lack of objection or harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a teacher's aide employed by a public school district who applied for unemployment compensation benefits for the summer recess period after the 1977-1978 academic year. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denied her claim under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253.3, subdivision (c), finding she had received reasonable assurance of reemployment in the fall, based on a district memorandum and letter confirming funding and intent to recall her by seniority. The superior court upheld this determination after reviewing the administrative record. The Court of Appeal examined the statute's conformity with federal unemployment compensation amendments, which permit denial of benefits to nonprofessional school employees during recesses if there is reasonable assurance of continued employment, and analyzed the meaning of that term as including written or implied agreements.

labor & employment

This case involved three consolidated superior court actions challenging the validity of Mendocino County's general plan under the state Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.). Petitioners, including residents and the Attorney General, argued that the plan's land use, housing, and circulation elements failed to meet the mandatory requirements of section 65302, which in turn prevented the Board of Supervisors from making required consistency findings to approve tentative subdivision maps for projects like Waunita Meadows and Eden Valley Ranch. One trial court upheld the plan, while two others invalidated it; on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the plan was invalid because it did not include all required elements meeting statutory standards. The court reversed the judgment upholding the plan and affirmed the invalidity judgments with modifications regarding remedies such as writs of mandate and injunctions.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant charged with murder who was held to answer after a preliminary examination, then found competent to stand trial following proceedings under Penal Code section 1368. He moved under section 995 to set aside the information, claiming he had been mentally incompetent at the preliminary examination, and requested an evidentiary hearing on his past mental state. The superior court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the completed 1368 proceedings meant he was not entitled to further inquiry into his competency at the earlier stage. The petitioner sought a writ to compel the court to grant the motion or hold the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Blue Cross of Northern California and the State Controller over whether funds from unnegotiated checks issued by Blue Cross for benefits and payments had escheated to the state under the Unclaimed Property Law. Blue Cross argued that the Unclaimed Property Law did not apply to it or its checks for various reasons, while the Controller sought to recover the funds. The superior court ruled in favor of the Controller, determining that the funds represented by checks unnegotiated for seven years had escheated and ordering Blue Cross to pay over approximately $444,000 plus interest. The court based its decision on the provisions of the Unclaimed Property Law requiring holders of unclaimed property to report and deliver it to the state, finding that Blue Cross's practice of writing off old checks did not exempt the funds from escheat.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned a Florida corporation sued in California superior court for breach of a commercial lease. The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's answer and cross-complaint on the grounds that the foreign corporation had transacted intrastate business in California without qualifying to do so under the Corporations Code and without paying required franchise taxes. The trial court granted the motion and struck the pleadings. On petition for writ of mandate, the appellate court examined declarations, certificates from the Secretary of State and Franchise Tax Board, and the statutory definitions of intrastate business, including enumerated exceptions for activities such as sales through independent contractors and solicitation of orders requiring out-of-state acceptance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Coleman v. Superior Court, petitioners charged with felonies entered not guilty pleas but had their preliminary examinations set more than 10 court days later without personally waiving the time limit under Penal Code section 859b. A magistrate discharged them under section 871 due to the violation, after which the prosecutor refiled identical charges in a new action, held timely preliminary examinations, and obtained an information; petitioners' motion to set aside the information under section 995 was denied by the superior court on estoppel grounds. The Court of Appeal examined the procedural dilemma stemming from People v. Peters (limiting magistrates' dismissal authority) and a later 1980 statutory amendment clarifying dismissal powers, which did not apply retroactively to this case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a municipal court action had been made timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 632. The municipal court denied the request as untimely after the announcement of its intended decision and entered judgment without findings; the superior court affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeal, after accepting transfer to ensure uniformity, held that the request must be made literally at the time of trial and is ineffective if made later, even before entry of judgment. This interpretation rested on the plain language of section 632's third paragraph, which has required an express request at trial in municipal court since 1933 and differs from the rules governing superior court actions.

procedure

The case involved multiple organizations and an individual petitioner seeking a writ of mandate to compel state officers, including the Insurance Commissioner and others, to collect detailed data from large insurance companies on employee demographics by race and sex, board memberships and conflicts, real property holdings, and Proposition 13 tax savings, in order to address claimed discrimination and regulatory gaps in the insurance industry. The superior court sustained demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that traditional mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 requires a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty imposed by statute, but the provisions cited by petitioners did not mandate the specific data collection sought.

business & regulatorycivil rightslabor & employment