55 results for 'court:"California Supreme Court"'.
J. Mumin finds that the trial court should not have given a jury a concurrent intent instruction on an attempted murder charge. The evidence does not support the theory that, in his effort to kill his primary target, defendant was trying to create a "kill zone" to kill all the police outside the door of the room where he was hiding. The number of shots defendant fired and the openness of his target area only show he had a conscious disregard for life, not a specific intent to kill. Reversed in part.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: S271049, Categories: Intent, Murder, Jury Instructions
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court erred in concluding that hearsay that qualified for the spontaneous statement exception to defendant's confrontation right was automatically admissible at his probation revocation hearing. A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment confrontation right in probation revocation hearings, but a defendant may have a due process right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness if the state cannot show good cause for not making the witness available or there is insufficient independent corroboration of the hearsay evidence. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: S269237, Categories: Confrontation, Probation
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court erred when it concluded that a director of a nonprofit public benefit corporation loses standing to continue litigation when he or she loses the position. Unlike shareholder enforcement suits involving for-profit corporations, statute does not require continuous directorship in litigation intended to remedy breaches by the leadership of a nonprofit public benefit corporation. Otherwise, directors facing litigation for self-dealing or other malfeasance would be encouraged to remove plaintiff directors from office, which would stifle the enforcement of laws governing charities. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: S271054, Categories: Corporations
J. Jenkins holds that the lower courts properly found that state law preempts Monterey County's Measure Z, which passed in 2016 and bans oil and gas wastewater injection and the drilling of new oil and gas wells. The measure cannot be reconciled with the Public Resource Code, which regulates the development of oil and gas resources. The measure's outright ban on certain production methods contradicts the Code's mandate that the state oil and gas supervisor has the authority to consider all methods and practices. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: S271869, Categories: Energy, Environment, Preemption
J. Groban finds that the appeals court erred in requiring that private universities allow students accused of intimate partner violence the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and accusers. Private organizations must use fair procedures that include a notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But they have the responsibility to devise their own methods without the courts imposing fixed procedures that must be followed in every situation, and live hearings with cross-examination are not required. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: S263180, Categories: Civil Rights, Education, Due Process
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
J. Guerrero finds the appellate court improperly found evidence surrounding a previous molestation of Doe to be admissible in this suit seeking to recover emotional distress damages for sexual abuse committed by her 4th grade teacher when she was 8 years old. Cited evidence code may permit evidence that would otherwise be excluded, though admissibility is subject to scrutiny for relevance. Code governing relevance is designed to protect against unwarranted intrusion into the private life of a sexual assault claimant by identifying and circumscribing evidence intended to attack credibility, and the trial court must undertake proper proceedings under this code. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero , Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: S272166, Categories: Education, Evidence, Emotional Distress
J. Corrigan holds, in answer to a question certified from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that under the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act a commercial automobile insurance policy remains in force only until its stated expiration date. So, an insurer's failure to timely cancel a truck driver's certificate of insurance with the department of motor vehicles did not mean the insurer was on the hook for a wrongful death claim stemming from a collision that occurred after the policy period ended.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: S267746, Categories: Insurance, Transportation, Contract
J. Kruger holds that the administrative court mistakenly concluded that outreach costs incurred by a Medicaid provider were for unreimbursable advertising. The findings showed that the outreach activities were intended to increase patient awareness and access, which are not categorically unreimbursable activities for a federally qualified health center. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: S270326, Categories: Administrative Law, Medicaid
J. Jenkins holds that the trial court jury instructions on first degree murder were in line with the Sanchez holding on substantial concurrent causation. Defendants participated in a gun battle in a crowded public place with the intent to kill their gang rivals. This satisfied the proximate cause element required to convict them of first degree murder for a bystander's death. And even though the bullet that killed the bystander was fired by their rival, their mental states in setting up the attack and firing wildly satisfied the mens rea element. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: July 20, 2023, Case #: S260063, Categories: Murder, Jury Instructions
J. Evans holds that triable issues of fact should have stopped the trial court from granting an insurer summary judgment on unfair competition allegations brought by the California Medical Association. The Unfair Competition Law limits a membership organization's standing to suits for injuries it suffers, but does not confer standing for injuries suffered by its members. But a membership organization attains standing when it makes expenditures, other than litigation expenses, to respond to unfair competition that threatens its mission. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: S269212, Categories: Civil Procedure, Health Care, Insurance
J. Liu holds that an employee who is required to arbitrate his or her individual Attorneys General Act claims does not lose standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate Act claims in court for labor code violations experienced by other employees. The fact of the labor code violation itself confers standing, which does not evaporate by the enforcement of an arbitration provision that requires that the employee's individual claims be heard in a non-court forum. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: S274671, Categories: Arbitration, Civil Procedure, Employment
J. Groban finds that the trial court properly held that the preemption provision of Medicare Part C expressly preempted negligence, wrongful death and elder abuse allegations against an HMO and a health care services administrator. The standards in Part C supersede any state law duties, including those that duplicate federal duties. The Part C preemption provision applies to common law claims, as well as claims based on state laws that are not directed at Medicare Advantage plans. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: S271501, Categories: Preemption, Negligence, Medicare
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court erred in holding that a county is immune from hospital collections claims for unpaid emergency room bills. The Government Claims Act does bar hospitals from seeking reimbursement under the the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act for emergency medical services provided to people enrolled in the county's health care service plan. The Government Claims Act provides immunity for tort claims, but does not apply to contract claims or other non-tort claims seeking money damages. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: July 10, 2023, Case #: S274927, Categories: Health Care, Insurance, Immunity
J. Corrigan, in response to questions certified from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holds that the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar an employee's spouse from suing an employer for negligence where the employee contracted Covid-19 at work and brought the virus home. The Act allows causes of action that are not legally dependent on an employee's injury, so it is irrelevant whether the employee ever became sick himself. Secondly, an employer does not owe a duty of care to protect an employee's household from Covid-19. Though forseeability and moral blame factors tend to impose a duty on the employer, the prospect of liability stemming from secondary infections would create untenable financial consequences for employers and impose significant burdens on the court system from the likely flood of complex cases.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: S274191, Categories: Covid-19, Workers' Compensation
J. Liu holds that the trial court must revisit defendant's sentence of 40 years to life for second degree murder. He was not the actual shooter and the causal link between his actions and the killing are too tenuous for proximate causation or direct aiding and abetting implied malice theories. The trial court failed to consider whether he knew the shooter intended to shoot the victim and whether he intended to help with the shooting, as required to find that he aided and abetted. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: S270723, Categories: Murder, Sentencing
J. Kruger finds that the appeals court erred in holding that a borrower's challenge to an arbitration award was time-barred. The 100-day deadline to seek vacatur of an arbitration award does not deprive trial courts of their fundamental jurisdiction to consider challenges to an award that are based on the equitable doctrines of tolling and estoppel. And statute for the enforcement of arbitration awards does not expressly preclude trial courts from granting equitable relief from arbitration deadlines. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: S270798, Categories: Arbitration, Civil Procedure, Banking / Lending
J. Corrigan finds that defendant's sentence for a burglary conviction improperly included a three-year probation term. Recent legislation that limits probation for most felonies to two years applies retroactively to cases that were nonfinal when the law became effective in 2021. Defendant, who agreed to the probation term when he pleaded guilty, will have the term shortened to two years while the rest of the plea bargain remains unchanged.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: S271057, Categories: Burglary, Probation, Plea
J. Kruger finds that the lower courts improperly held that police officers who left a homicide victim's naked body exposed to the public were immune to an emotional distress complaint filed by the victim's widow. The provision of the Government Claims Act that give absolute immunity to public workers facing malicious prosecution claims does not extend to claims for other types of injuries caused during law enforcement investigations. While there is often overlap between investigations and the initiation of prosecutions, they are not the same. However, other provisions of the Act may shield police from such a claim. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: S269672 , Categories: Malicious Prosecution, Immunity, Emotional Distress
J. Guerrero finds the appeals court misinterpreted the force requirement of the kidnapping statute where the victim is deceived while intoxicated. Defendant transported and then raped an intoxicated victim after telling her he could find her lost cell phone. The force requirement for an intoxicated person is the same as for an infant or child, who cannot provide legal consent, cannot fathom illegal intent and may willingly go with a deceptive kidnapper. Combined with the illegal intent that he had to commit rape, the jury had adequate findings to convict defendant of kidnapping. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: S272627, Categories: Sex Offender, Kidnapping, Jury Instructions
J. Corrigan finds that the trial court properly sentenced defendant to death on murder, rape, torture, kidnap and firearm convictions. Though his original death judgment was reversed because a juror had been improperly discharged during the penalty phase, a retrial again ended with a death judgment. As with instructional, evidentiary or prosecutorial misconduct errors, an error in discharging a juror does not bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds. Also, he failed to support his due process, ineffective assistance, death penalty statute and other challenges. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: S189373, Categories: Death Penalty, Murder, Double Jeopardy
J. Corrigan finds that the lower courts properly held that defendant was ineligible for pretrial mental health diversion after he was found guilty of resisting arrest with force or violence. A request for diversion must be made before adjudication, which means before the entry of a guilty or no contest plea or the attachment of jeopardy at trial. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: S268925, Categories: Competence, Resisting Arrest
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court properly determined that statute immunizes a school district from treble damages sought by a minor student who was sexually assaulted by a district employee. The student sought enhanced damages under a statute that allows for treble damages where there is evidence that an employer covered up past abuse by an employee. Statute shields public entities from enhanced, noncompensatory damages that are expressly punitive, or primarily punitive or exemplary in nature. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: S269608, Categories: Tort, Immunity, Damages
J. Groban finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for murder, though the court of appeal improperly affirmed the sentencing enhancements for his association with a criminal street gang and for firearm use. The jury was not instructed, as required by a recent Assembly Bill, that the predicate offenses must have “commonly benefited [the] criminal street gang, and the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.” It was not proven whether defendant’s claims of gang association were true or not, and the firearm enhancement is contingent upon the gang enhancement. The court of appeal’s affirmation of the enhancements is reversed and remanded.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: S273134, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Gangs
J. Liu finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for six counts of forcible lewd acts on his nine-year-old cousin and one lesser included offense of attempt, handing down seven separate, consecutive sentences. The relevant California penal code, requiring that a sentencing court impose “full, separate, and consecutive term[s]” for offenses committed on separate occasions complies with the Sixth Amendment. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: S271828, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender, Child Victims
J. Liu, upon review, finds the court of appeal improperly affirmed the trial court’s finding that the former employee is not subject to protection for complaining about unpaid wages. A protected disclosure under the relevant labor code encompasses reports of violations made to an agency even if the recipient already knows of the violation. Remanded.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: S269456, Categories: Civil Rights, Agency, Employment Retaliation