Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[11/20]
Vasquez v. State of California
In a taxpayer cause of action brought against the state for violating Proposition 139, known as the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, by failing to collect and disburse payments due from joint venture programs with private employers within state prisons, award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff-company representive under the "private attorney general statute", Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, is affirmed where: 1) no rule applicable to this case required plaintiff first to attempt to settle the matter short of litigation; 2) the present case is not a catalyst case because plaintiff successfully obtained a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship; and 3) the "limitations on the catalyst theory" adopted in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. did not properly apply here.
[11/20]
In Re: Amendments to Fla. R. Crim. P.
In response to an out-of-cycle report of the Florida Bar's Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the court adopts the committee's proposed amendments to conform the rules to recent legislation.
[11/20]
US v. Nevils
Conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition is reversed where the evidence offered with respect to the element of knowing possession was insufficient.
[11/20]
Doody v. Schriro
In a habeas proceeding following convictions for murder and robbery, denial of petition for relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state court's holding that defendant received adequate Miranda warnings was not an unreasonable application of clearly-established federal law; but 2) police coercion of defendant's confession over a twelve-hour period of interrogation rendered it involuntary.
[11/19]
US v. Daughenbaugh
Conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed over an objection that defendant's guilty plea was invalid because he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to indictment.
Family Law
[11/07]
Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White
In a suit by an interest group seeking on First Amendment grounds to force the state of Illinois to issue "Choose Life" specialty license plates, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) specialty license plates implicate the speech rights of private speakers, not government speech; 2) specialty plates are a nonpublic forum; and 3) the state could enforce a content-based but viewpoint-neutral ban disallowing any abortion-related message, whether pro-life or pro-choice, to be displayed on its license plates.
[11/06]
Aguilar v. Aguilar
Denial of petition to undo a wife's withdrawal of trust property brought by a remainder beneficiary of the trust is reversed and remanded where: 1) even though the property the wife sought to withdraw was her share of the community property, it was too late for her to withdraw it; 2) irrevocable trusts are binding, even on their trustors; and 3) as the life beneficiary, the wife could continue to enjoy the property as held by the trust.
[11/05]
Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
California's maintenance of the California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which is a database of known or suspected child abusers, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.
[11/05]
In re A.E.
Order directing both parents to participate in Department of children and Family Services (DCFS)-approved "programs of parent education [and] individual counseling addressing all issues including anger management" is affirmed where the father did not object to the order directing him to participate in counseling sessions.
[10/29]
Woolard v. Woolard
In a suit alleging mismanagement of a trust established by plaintiff's father for which defendant was trustee, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant's disbursements of trust funds to plaintiff's father violated the express terms of the trust; 2) a statute permitting disbursements to adult relatives of beneficiaries would only apply if the trust contained no express terms forbidding such disbursements; 3) no showing of bad faith was required to overturn the disbursements, since those disbursements were not discretionary decisions but rather were expressly forbidden; 4) the monthly statements of the trust's brokerage account were not records adequate to satisfy defendant's record-keeping duty; and 5) defendant breached his fiduciary duties by failing to inquire about the use of the disbursed funds.
Injury & Tort Law
[11/19]
McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.
[11/19]
Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.
[11/17]
Goldstein v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
In a claim alleging that defendants wrongfully obtained plaintiff's conviction for murder based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants, grant of plaintiff's Penal Code section 924.2 petition seeking access to grand jury materials is reversed where California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants.
[11/17]
The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.
[11/17]
US v. Shefton
Dismissal of petition for an ancillary hearing regarding interest in certain property that was subject to a criminal forfeiture order is reversed where a construct trust can serve as a superior legal interest under section 853(n)(6)(A) and thus can serve as grounds for invalidating a criminal forfeiture act.
Professional Malpractice
[11/14]
In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.
[11/13]
Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.
[11/13]
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp.
In a medical malpractice action against hospital and doctor, petition for writ of supersedeas directing the trial court to reduce the amount of its appeal bond is denied where: 1) the lump sum present value of the judgment against defendant-hospital was the "amount of the judgment" for the purpose of calculating the undertaking required to stay the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1; and 2) the trial court properly set the amount of defendant-hospital's appeal bond at 1.5 times the lump sum present value of plaintiff's judgment against it.
[11/13]
Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.
[10/31]
Iowa Physicians' Clinic Med. Found. v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
In a suit in which plaintiff-policyholder sought damages in tort for the alleged bad-faith refusal by defendant-insurer to settle a malpractice claim against an insured doctor who was plaintiff's employee, judgment for defendant is affirmed where under state law, a bad-faith claim was available only to an insured, not to an uninsured policyholder.