8 results for 'judge:"Tucher"'.
J. Tucher holds that the trial court must rehear defendant's motion for a new trial on charges of a lewd act upon a child and exhibiting harmful matter to a minor. The ex-wife's declaration that she and the alleged victim had schemed to falsely accuse him was newly discovered evidence. The trial court's analysis discounting the ex-wife's declaration was flawed since the declaration contradicted the strongest evidence against defendant. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: A167246, Categories: Evidence, Sex Offender
J. Tucher finds that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony from an alleged victim's mother in defendant's sexual abuse trial. The statements victim made to her mother did not meet the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule because they were made about events that occurred five years earlier, and came after the victim had reflected on years of molestation and before a final sexual encounter. The convictions for sex offenses over the six years before the victim made a report stand, but the mother's hearsay testimony was the only evidence supporting a count for a lewd act on a child under the age of 14. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: A165646, Categories: Confrontation, Sex Offender
J. Tucher finds that the trial court properly issued a domestic violence restraining order on a husband after denying his request for continuance. He had more than the statutory five-day notice of the petition and his wife's supplemental declaration did not reset the clock to allow him to request a continuance. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: A168081, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Domestic Violence
J. Tucher finds that the trial court properly ruled that the state's unfair competition complaint against a law firm is barred by the litigation privilege. The complaint alleges that the law firm annually files thousands of boilerplate ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act suits that assert falsehoods as part of a shakedown scheme targeting small businesses. Both the state's false standing and coercion of settlement allegations constitute communications within the broad litigation privilege and neither is subject to an exception. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: A166490, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Unfair Competition, Immunity
[Modified.] [Consolidated.] J. Tucher makes a couple of changes to footnotes and denies a petition for rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court properly rejected Environmental Quality Act challenges to the long-range development plan for the University of California, San Francisco campus. The plan's environmental impact report adequately considered alternative development plans and the actions needed to mitigate wind impacts. The report should have considered public transit impacts, but the omission was not prejudicial because the report provides enough information to inform the public about the project's likely adverse impacts. The school was not required to analyze visual impacts because the development is an infill site, nor was it required to adopt mitigation measures for historical buildings that will be repurposed. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: A166091, Categories: Administrative Law, Construction, Environment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Consolidated.] J. Tucher holds that the trial court properly rejected Environmental Quality Act challenges to the long-range development plan for the University of California, San Francisco campus. The plan's environmental impact report adequately considered alternative development plans and the actions needed to mitigate wind impacts. The report should have considered public transit impacts, but the omission was not prejudicial because the report provides enough information to inform the public about the project's likely adverse impacts. The school was not required to analyze visual impacts because the development is an infill site, nor was it required to adopt mitigation measures for historical buildings that will be repurposed. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: A166091, Categories: Administrative Law, Construction, Environment
J. Tucher find that the trial court properly upheld a university's censure and one-year suspension of a professor for unwanted sexualized conduct toward a junior colleague. The university filed disciplinary charges against the professor within three years of the chancellor's learning of the alleged violation. A graduate student from another school was a "colleague" for the purposes of the faculty code of conduct, and his behavior toward her violated university policy. Also, he was given fair notice of disciplinary proceedings and was unfair and the sanction was not excessive. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: A164481, Categories: Administrative Law, Employment