Court Cases Court Cases

  Most Popular Cases Tab Overlap Cases with Faces Tab Overlap Cases by Type Tab Overlap Cases by Reporter Tab Overlap Cases by Year Right End

All Reporters → cal-4th → Volume 29

Opinions in cal-4th Volume 29

Opinion Defendant Jeremy Brandon, who was charged with sexually molesting a seven-year-old boy, sought discovery of certain information in the personnel records of the two arresting officers. The trial court reviewed the materials in chambers and, as relevant here, ordered the disclosure of a citizen complaint filed against one of the officers 10 years before the arrest in this case. Although Evi...
Views: 0
*36Opinion Under California law, the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) may discipline any chiropractor who engages in professional misconduct. A chiropractor accused of misconduct is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge, whose proposed decision is reviewed by the Board. A chiropractor found to have committed misconduct may be ordered to pay the “reasonable costs of...
Views: 1
124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 53 52 P.3d 685 EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONSUMER CAUSE, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. S094877. Supreme Court of California. August 29, 2002. *509 McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Leslie G. Landau, San Francisco, Colleen P. Doyle, Los Angeles, Deborah A. Nolan, Matthew Moran, Robert A. Brundage, Margaret Prinzing and...
Views: 3
Opinion Must a defendant, in order to obtain a dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)1 under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; the anti-SLAPP statute), demonstrate that the action was brought with the intent to chill the defendant’s exercise of constitutional speech or petition rights? For the following reasons, we conclude not.2 Background As ...
Views: 0
124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69 52 P.3d 695 CITY OF COTATI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gene CASHMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S099999. Supreme Court of California. August 29, 2002. *522 Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, Donald R. Lincoln, Henry E. Heater, San Diego. Linda B. Reich, San Diego; Walter & Pistole and Jeffrey A. Walter, Sonoma, for Plaintiff and Appella...
Views: 1
Opinion The question presented is whether this action based on the defendant’s having filed counterclaims in a prior, unrelated proceeding in federal court, is one “arising from” activity protected by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; the anti-SLAPP statute), which provides for early dismissal of certain actions known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”1 We...
Views: 0
124 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105 52 P.3d 624 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Greg ACOSTA, Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Lewis Cornelius, Defendant and Appellant. Nos. S089120, S068743. Supreme Court of California. August 15, 2002. As Modified August 16, 2002. As Modified September 11, 2002. *437 David H. Goodwin, under appointment by the...
Views: 0
126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 536 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 142 56 P.3d 645 29 Cal. 4th 142 Arthur CHAMBERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Philip KAY, Defendant and Respondent. No. S098007. Supreme Court of California. November 4, 2002. *538 Werchick & Werchick, Arne Werchick, Truckee; Bornstein & Bornstein, Jonathan H. Bornstein, San Francisco; Law Offices of Joel D. Adler and Joel Adler, San Francisco, for ...
Views: 1
Opinion The question presented by this case is whether former section 13.102 of article XIII of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco (repealed Mar. 5, 2000; hereafter section 13.102), by prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices, violated the free speech clause of the California Constitution (art. I, § 2, subd. (a)). We conclude it did not. *168In Canaan...
Views: 0
126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 908 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 189 57 P.3d 372 CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. S099647. Supreme Court of California. November 14, 2002. As Modified November 14, 2002. *909 Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Michael B. Rutberg, Temporary Judge.[*] Devirian & Shinmoto and Donald B. Devi...
Views: 0
Opinion Code of Civil Procedure1 section 431.70 provides in pertinent part: “Where cross-demands for money have existed between persons at any point in time when neither demand was barred by the statute of limitations, and an action is thereafter commenced by one such person, the other person may assert in the answer the defense of payment in that the two demands are compensated so far as they equ...
Views: 0
126 Cal.Rptr.2d 897 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200 57 P.3d 363 In re J.W, a Minor. Walter W, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Jacqueline W, Objector and Appellant. No. S100745. Supreme Court of California. November 14, 2002. *898 Bradley A. Bristow, Sacramento, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Objector and Appellant. Robert Navarro, Fresno, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner an...
Views: 1
Opinion In 1978, this court held that a reviewing court is required “to appoint counsel for any indigent parent appealing from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to Civil Code [former] section 232.” (In re Jacqueline H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 170, 177 [145 Cal.Rptr. 548, 577 P.2d 683], fn. omitted, italics added (Jacqueline H).) We concluded that an indigent parent’s right to appointed appel...
Views: 1
127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 169 (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 215 57 P.3d 647 CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVANT! CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. No. S098266. Supreme Court of California. November 21, 2002. Keker & Van Nest, John W. Keker, Jeffrey R. Chanin, Michael H. Page and Ragesh K. Tangri, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Robert G. Bone and James Pooley as Amici...
Views: 1
127 Cal.Rptr.2d 177 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 228 57 P.3d 654 Stephen L. COOLEY, as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Paul Marentez, Real Party in Interest. No. S094676. Supreme Court of California. November 25, 2002. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing January 15, 2003. *181 Stephen L. Cooley and Gil Garcetti, District Attorneys, George M. Palme...
Views: 0
127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262 58 P.3d 2 Matthew PAVLOVICH, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., Real Party in Interest. No. S100809. Supreme Court of California. November 25, 2002. *332 Ornah Levy; Huber Samuelson; HS Law Group; Hopkins & Carley, Arthur V. Plank, San Jose, and Allonn E. Levy for Petitioner. Richar...
Views: 3
Opinion We granted review in this matter and in the companion case, Degrassi v. Cook (2002) 29 Cal.4th 333 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 508, 58 P.3d 360] (Degrassi), to consider whether an individual may bring an action for money damages on the basis of an alleged violation of a provision of the California Constitution, in the absence of a statutory provision or an established common law tort authorizing suc...
Views: 1
127 Cal.Rptr.2d 508 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 333 58 P.3d 360 Christine DeGRASSI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arthur COOK, as City Manager, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S094248. Supreme Court of California. November 27, 2002. Robert L. Kern, Canoga Park, and Scott E. Wheeler, Chino Hills, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Terry Francke for California First Amendment Coalition as Amicus Curiae...
Views: 0
An employee who has not received wages when due may either bring a lawsuit against the employer or file a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner, who issues a decision after an informal hearing known as a Berman hearing. If the employee elects to file a wage claim, Labor Code section 98.2 permits either party to “appeal” from the Labor Commissioner’s decision to the superior court. That court then...
Views: 0
127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 381 58 P.3d 391 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Maurice BOYETTE, Defendant and Appellant. No. S032736. Supreme Court of California. December 2, 2002. As Modified February 11, 2003. Rehearing Denied February 11, 2003.[*] *560 Lnne S. Coffin, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Audrey R. Chavez, Deputy State *561 Public Defen...
Views: 1
*476Opinion In California, a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of a defective product is strictly liable in tort for any resulting harm to a person or to property other than the product itself. This case presents two issues: (1) Can a manufacturer of windows installed in a mass-produced home during its construction ever be strictly liable in tort for harm resulting from defects in those wind...
Views: 2
*501Opinion Penal Code1 section 148.6 makes it a misdemeanor to file an allegation of misconduct against a peace officer knowing the allegation to be false. We must decide whether that section violates constitutional free speech rights. Relying primarily on R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377 [112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305] (R.A.V.), defendants argue, and the Court of Appeal found, that secti...
Views: 0
127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 802 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 515 58 P.3d 931 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifford Stanley BOLDEN, Defendant and Appellant. No. S022173. Supreme Court of California. December 5, 2002. *810 Jeanne Keevan-Lynch, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and David P. Druliner, ...
Views: 2
127 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 569 58 P.3d 476 Eric HUMPHREY, Petitioner, v. The APPELLATE DIVISION of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. No. S101047. Supreme Court of California. December 9, 2002. *647 Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Victor Acevedo and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner. No appearance for ...
Views: 2
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 75 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 577 59 P.3d 150 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel WALKER, Defendant and Appellant. No. S097725. Supreme Court of California. December 12, 2002. *76 Susan D. Shors, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorne...
Views: 1
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 92 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 600 59 P.3d 164 In re MICHELE D, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michele D., Defendant and Appellant. No. S101922. Supreme Court of California. December 16, 2002. *94 Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Armando V. Moreno, Temporary Judge.[*] Jeralyn Keller, Pasadena, under appointment by the Supreme Cou...
Views: 0
I dissent. Robert Rosenkrantz’s continued incarceration violates the rule against ex post facto laws. For over two centuries, a bedrock principle of American criminal justice, embedded in both the United States Constitution1 and the California Constitution,2 has been that no state may pass an ex post facto law, which includes a law that increases the punishment for a crime after it has been commit...
Views: 0
Opinion We granted review to consider whether the superior court properly enjoined a party to a California lawsuit from taking any action in a Minnesota proceeding involving the same dispute. We conclude that under principles of judicial restraint and comity the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued here was improper. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Facts Medtronic, Inc. (...
Views: 0
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 720 59 P.3d 738 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Peter William KRAMER, Defendant and Appellant. No. S103746. Supreme Court of California. December 23, 2002. Nancy L. Tetreault, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorneys Gene...
Views: 1
128 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 726 60 P.3d 165 In re Larry H. ROBERTS on Habeas Corpus. No. S071835. Supreme Court of California. January 2, 2003. *764 Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Claudia J. Robinson, Sacramento; and Robert Bloom for Petitioner Larry H. Roberts. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, Chief...
Views: 0
Opinion We granted this case to settle a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions as to whether the crime of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. *758(a)(2)) is committed if the female victim consents to an initial penetration by her male companion, and then withdraws her consent during an act of intercourse, but the male continues against her will. (Compare People v. Vela (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 23...
Views: 0
Opinion In this case, we consider what statute of limitations applies when a county or city fails to act upon a claim for refund of property taxes within six months and the taxpayer elects under Revenue and Taxation Code section 5141, subdivision (b) to “consider the claim rejected and bring an action” in superior court. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the applicable statute of limi...
Views: 0
Opinion Petitioner James Robert Scott seeks relief on habeas corpus from the judgment of death entered against him in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. A747321. We affirmed that judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 240, 939 P.2d 354] (Scott).) In this matter, we issued an order to show cause based on allegations that (1) trial counsel failed ...
Views: 0
Opinion On Halloween morning 1980, defendant Michael Ray Burgener killed William Arias, a convenience store clerk, and emptied the store’s cash register of approximately $50. In 1981, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder by use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, 12022.5),1 robbery by use of a firearm and with the infliction of great bodily injury (§§211, 12022.5, 12022.7), and bei...
Views: 0
129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895 62 P.3d 45 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jeanie Louise ADAIR, Defendant and Respondent. No. S098218. Supreme Court of California. January 30, 2003. *801 Gil Garcetti and Steve Cooley, District Attorneys, George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, Fred Klink and Patrick D. Moran, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant. John ...
Views: 0
129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911 62 P.3d 54 Alta KAVANAUGH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WEST SONOMA COUNTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. S101633. Supreme Court of California. January 30, 2003. Rehearing Denied April 16, 2003. As Modified April 16, 2003. *813 Robert J. Henry and Nancy L. Klein for Defendants and Appellants. James David Allen, San Diego...
Views: 0
*938Opinion Through a series of agreements, plaintiff Henkel Corporation (Henkel) acquired the metallic chemical product line of Amchem Products, Inc. (Amchem No. I), 1 and assumed all related liabilities. The question here is whether Henkel also acquired the benefits of the insurance policies issued by defendants to Amchem No. 1 to cover lawsuits based on injuries sustained during the policy per...
Views: 0
129 Cal.Rptr.2d 842 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 954 62 P.3d 81 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. No. S104487. Supreme Court of California. February 3, 2003. *843 Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez, Fresno, for Defendant and Appellant. Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Brent Riggs and Fred Klink, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respo...
Views: 0
129 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 979 62 P.3d 97 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Albert ROBERGE, Defendant and Appellant. No. S094627. Supreme Court of California. February 6, 2003. Rehearing Denied April 9, 2003. *862 David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, ...
Views: 0
Opinion Under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), convicted sex offenders who have served their prison terms may be *982involuntarily committed to a state mental hospital if found to be “sexually violent predator[s].” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) That finding is made after a trial (§ 6603), based on proof beyond a reason...
Views: 0
129 Cal.Rptr.2d 869 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990 62 P.3d 103 Jack A. GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Defendant and Respondent. No. S102249. Supreme Court of California. February 6, 2003. *870 Perry, Johnson, Murray, Anderson & Miller, Perry, Johnson, Murray, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz, Leslie R. Perry, Santa Rosa, and Jessica R. Flores for Plaintiffs and Appella...
Views: 0
At issue here is the 1999 revision of CALJIC No. 2.50.01, a jury instruction on how to weigh evidence that has been introduced to show that a defendant has committed a sexual offense other than the one charged. According to the majority, this instruction “correctly states the law.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1009.) I, however, am of the view that the instruction is ambiguous and potentially confusing...
Views: 0
130 Cal.Rptr.2d 662 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019 63 P.3d 220 Francisco COLMENARES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRAEMAR COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. S098895. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 2003. Rehearing Denied April 16, 2003. Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Joseph M. Lovretovich, Woodland Hills, Christopher W. Olmsted, San Diego; Disability Rights Education & ...
Views: 0
Opinion Petitioners Maurice Alford and Donny Love were arrested on drug charges, the specifics of which are not pertinent to this appeal. Because petitioners’ narrative of events leading to their arrest differed from that of the arresting officers, they sought to challenge the officers’ credibility. Petitioners accordingly moved, in superior court, for Pitchess discovery of past complaints made t...
Views: 0
130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064 63 P.3d 979 Alexander M. LITTLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUTO STIEGLER, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No. S101435. Supreme Court of California. February 27, 2003. *895 Fisher & Phillips, Christopher C. Hoffman and Jeffrey R. Thurrell, Irvine, for Defendant and Appellant. Fine, Boggs, Cope & Perkins, Ned A. Fine, John P. Boggs, Half Moon Bay...
Views: 1
131 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096 63 P.3d 913 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Bernardino County, Respondent; Roslyn Carrillo et al., Real Parties in Interest. Baumac Corporation, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Respondent; Roslyn Carrillo, Real Party in Interest. Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation et al., Petitioners, v....
Views: 2
Opinion This case addresses what claims and remedies may be pursued by a plaintiff who alleges a lost business opportunity due to the unfair practices of a competitor. The Republic of Korea wished to purchase military equipment known as synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems and solicited competing bids from manufacturers, including Loral Corporation (Loral) and MacDonald, Dettwiler, and Associat...
Views: 0
130 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1196 63 P.3d 1000 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raul Gomez GUTIERREZ, Defendant and Appellant. No. S102162. Supreme Court of California. March 6, 2003. Rehearing Denied May 14, 2003. Certiorari Denied October 14, 2003. *919 Tracy J. Dressner, La Crescenta, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Maureen J. Shanahan, Malibu, under appointment by...
Views: 0
131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 64 P.3d 788 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark BARNUM, Defendant and Appellant. No. S095872. Supreme Court of California. March 17, 2003. *502 Fern M. Laethem and Lynne S. Coffin, State Public Defenders, Jeffrey J. Gale, Acting State Public Defender, under appointments by the Supreme Court, John Fresquez, Assistant State Public Defender, Arnol...
Views: 0
—I concur generally with the majority opinion. I disagree, however, with its analysis of one issue, which I discuss below. Defendant was charged with the first degree murder and rape of Julia Miller, and there was a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during a rape. In defendant’s testimony at the guilt phase of his capital trial, he did not deny killing Miller and having sexu...
Views: 0
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro News Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro News Firms Entities
 

Non-Government Works Copyright © 2001-2026 Think Computer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

About   Privacy   Security   Contact Us

No AI
This website does not use generative AI for text responses.

PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?