Curtis Dwight Wilbur

This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an attorney on behalf of Charles P. Stevens, who had been convicted of murder in California state court and sentenced to death. The petition claimed that Stevens' chosen trial lawyer conducted the defense unskillfully, amounting to a denial of due process. The court denied the petition, observing first that it should have been presented to a U.S. District Court rather than directly to the circuit judge. It further held that a defendant represented by counsel of his own selection cannot assert a constitutional violation based on that counsel's alleged incompetence or errors, and that no substantial federal constitutional claim had been shown to justify interfering with the state court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition to review the Board of Tax Appeals' decision upholding income tax deficiencies against Stanley S. Anderson for 1924 and 1925, based on the Commissioner's determination that all income derived from community property taxable solely to the husband. The taxpayer argued that he and his wife owned the underlying property as tenants in common with each holding a separate one-half interest, due to an oral agreement between them that altered its status under California law. The court observed that the Board's findings recited evidence about the couple's testimony on the agreement but did not make a specific finding on the ultimate fact of ownership or whether the agreement existed. It held that without such a finding, appellate review could not proceed, and remanded the case to the Board of Tax Appeals for explicit determinations on the agreement's existence and terms and the resulting character of the property as community or separate. The core reasoning emphasized the distinction between evidentiary facts and ultimate facts, the reviewing court's inability to assess witness credibility or make findings, and the legal effect of spousal agreements under California Civil Code section 158.

taxesfamily lawproperty

The case involved a property owner who borrowed money secured by two deeds of trust on real properties in San Francisco and Napa County, California, and after a foreclosure sale under the second deed of trust followed by transfers of title, filed suit to quiet title alleging fraud by the lenders and trustees as well as violations of due process in the foreclosure proceedings under state statutes. The district court dismissed the bill for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims could not proceed because they targeted only the conduct of private parties rather than any state action, and that the allegations otherwise failed to establish a federal claim.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involves appeals from decrees enjoining the Project Manager of the Flathead Irrigation Project from assessing charges on landowners for the project's construction, operation, and maintenance, and from challenging their claimed water rights from Finley Creek. The plaintiffs, owners of former Indian allotments, argued their lands had pre-existing water rights exempting them from project charges. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decisions, holding that the suits could not proceed without joining the United States and the Secretary of the Interior as necessary parties because the project charges are authorized by the Secretary and involve federal property rights. The core reasoning is that a subordinate federal officer cannot be sued alone to adjudicate such federal interests, based on precedents requiring higher officials as defendants.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge by an employer and its insurance carrier to a compensation award made by a deputy commissioner under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to the widow of a stevedore who became ill and died after performing heavy lifting work on a ship. The district court dismissed the challenge and upheld the award, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the deputy commissioner had authority to resolve factual disputes and that evidence supported the finding that the employee’s fatal pneumothorax was caused by strain from the work, qualifying as a compensable accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment even with a preexisting condition. The court further held that the statutory burial allowance was properly included because the widow’s verified claim stated the expense and it was not contested. The topics are labor & employment and procedure.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case was a lawsuit by a life insurance beneficiary against the insurer seeking payment on two policies after her husband disappeared in 1929. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $10,000, leading to an appeal by the insurance company that challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of death before the seven-year presumption period. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, concluding that circumstantial evidence of the insured's long-standing suicidal mania, physical frailty, recent threats, and disappearance near the bay supported the jury's finding of death. The court rejected arguments requiring proof of a specific external peril and found no reversible error in the trial court's amendment or jury instructions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Connley v. United States, criminal defendants appealed their convictions and sought to strike a proviso in the district court's bail order that conditioned the appeal bond on payment of fines and costs if the judgment was affirmed. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court's order conformed to local court rules authorizing such conditions and that the matter of bail terms was within the trial court's discretion. The court treated the motion as an application to fix bail on appeal and ordered bonds in specified amounts that would not operate as a supersedeas for collection of the fines unless separate supersedeas bonds were provided. The ruling relied on precedents upholding similar bail conditions and the principle that challenges to bail amounts require a factual showing of excessiveness rather than a motion to strike.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved petitioners challenging contempt judgments entered against them for violating preliminary injunctions issued in state court proceedings to abate alleged nuisances from the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. The abatement actions were filed in December 1922, before the Wright Act took effect, and the injunctions were based on the federal Volstead Act; petitioners argued the federal procedural rules did not apply in state court, the injunctions were invalid or had expired under California law, and the evidence was insufficient to support contempt findings. The court held that the superior court had jurisdiction to issue the injunctions and adjudicate contempt under the Volstead Act or equitable powers, that any procedural defects did not render the orders void, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the contempt findings against the petitioners who were actively involved. It therefore affirmed the contempt orders and remanded the petitioners to custody.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved a buyer who purchased celery seeds labeled as a specific variety but received a different type that could not be distinguished until the plants matured, leading to damages when they failed to bleach properly. The buyer sued the seed seller for breach of warranty, and the trial court awarded damages, but the seller appealed arguing that a general custom in the seed trade disclaimed any warranty. The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that a universal trade custom of non-warranty is implied into the contract by law and binds the buyer even without actual knowledge, based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding implied contract terms from usage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to bar the district court of appeal from issuing a writ of mandate less than sixty days after its opinion and judgment. The court ruled that the district court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandate until the sixty-day period had expired, overruling the demurrer and extending the alternative writ accordingly. The decision rested on longstanding practice under the state constitution as interpreted in prior cases such as Noel v. Smith, which treated original mandamus proceedings as "causes" subject to the delay rule, an interpretation effectively adopted by later constitutional re-adoptions without change.

procedure

The case involved stockholders of the La Zacualpa Hidalgo Rubber Company who sued to enjoin the company's transfer of property to the American Trading Company under a 1921 agreement, obtaining a temporary restraining order before the superior court denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The stockholders appealed the denial and obtained an injunction pending appeal that continued to block the transfer, supported by a bond payable to the rubber company. American Trading Company petitioned for a writ of review, contending the order was void for lack of separate notice and because the bond did not name it as beneficiary. The court affirmed the order, reasoning that the injunction pending appeal was a valid exercise of the superior court's inherent authority to preserve the status quo as incidental to the appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction, so no additional notice was required and the statutory bond rules did not apply.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over the existence and assets of a partnership between the plaintiff and defendant from 1907 to 1918, centered on the manufacturing and sale of a proprietary medicine called 'Chewalla,' with some profits allegedly invested in real estate titled in the defendant's name. The plaintiff sought an accounting of business profits and real estate rents, a declaration of her half-interest in the property, and dissolution of the partnership. The trial court found a partnership existed, determined the real estate and other assets were partnership property, calculated specific net profits and balances after expenses, and ordered a division and sale of assets. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's failure to detail every item of the multi-year accounting in its findings. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court correctly resolved the contested issues on profits, expenses, and ownership, and that the lack of itemized findings caused no prejudice or miscarriage of justice since the results aligned with the evidence.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a workers' compensation claim after a chauffeur employed by Mrs. Garvey was shot and killed by the household cook while the two were investigating suspicious noises in the home at the employer's request. The Industrial Accident Commission initially denied the claim but later granted a rehearing and awarded benefits, finding that the employee's death arose out of and in the course of his employment due to his exposure to the risk of confronting potential intruders. The California Supreme Court annulled the award, reasoning that the cook acted out of private revenge or personal motives unrelated to any burglary or the employer's directive, so the death did not arise out of the employment even if the initial investigation was within its course. The court did not reach a procedural challenge regarding notice of the rehearing.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over funds that Patrick Kyne paid toward the purchase of real property from the Sunnyside Land Company, with the defendant California Title Insurance & Trust Co. acting as title holder under a trust agreement. The plaintiff sued to recover the $995, alleging the defendant had been entrusted with the money to buy the land but instead purchased and resold it without consent. The court affirmed a judgment of nonsuit, holding that the money was paid to the defendant as an agent of the vendor and immediately became the property of the Sunnyside Land Company under the trust agreement, so the plaintiff had no right to recover from the defendant. The plaintiff's recourse, if any, would be against the vendor or under the trust for conveyance, neither of which was at issue here.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a malicious prosecution claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant after he filed an affidavit alleging her insanity under the Political Code, leading to a hearing where a commission found her not insane and dismissed the charge. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the dissenting opinion contends that this instruction was proper and the judgment should be affirmed. The core reasoning is that probable cause is a question of law for the court, and even assuming the plaintiff's version of disputed facts (including denial of threats and an alleged affair), the circumstances known to the defendant would lead a reasonable person to suspect insanity endangering person or property; advice from counsel and officials further supported his actions, and evidence of malice does not negate probable cause.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involves a petition for a writ of review challenging the superior court's appointment of a guardian for Mrs. Grinbaum, who had been adjudicated incompetent under decrees from German and Swiss courts. The dissenting opinion concludes that the court should discharge the guardian ad litem and dismiss the proceedings without prejudice, rather than annul the appointment or entertain further review. The core reasoning focuses on the ongoing effect of the foreign incapacity adjudications, the acquiescence of foreign guardians in the California guardianship, the risk of confusion and expense in a large estate, and the need to first resolve restoration to capacity proceedings before attacking the original appointment on notice grounds.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Julie Grinbaum in a guardianship proceeding. The concurring opinion agrees with the reversal of the order appointing Erna A. Herrscher as guardian, citing the reasons given in Justice Richards' opinion. It further notes that Herrscher, at whose instance the appointment was made, effectively consents to the reversal, in contrast to the related proceeding involving the guardianship of the estate.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a petition for a writ of mandate to compel a superior court judge to transfer guardianship restoration proceedings to another judge, based on affidavits alleging the judge's bias and prejudice. The underlying matter concerned Julie Grinbaum's effort to be restored to capacity after guardians had been appointed for her person and estate. The court noted that it had separately ruled those guardianship appointments void for lack of jurisdiction, rendering the restoration proceedings invalid from the start. Because the disqualification issue was therefore moot, the petition was dismissed without addressing the judge's qualifications or the superior court's jurisdiction over related capacity determinations.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned proceedings involving Julie Grinbaum, including the appointment of guardians for her person and estate, a subsequent application for restoration to capacity, and a request for an order compelling depositions in connection with that application. The court had previously determined that the orders appointing the guardians were void. Because those foundational orders were invalid, the court concluded that the restoration proceedings, which depended on the validity of the appointments, must also fail, rendering it unnecessary to address the trial judge's qualifications or to issue a writ of mandamus for the depositions. The petition was therefore dismissed.

family lawprocedure

In People v. Le Roy, the defendant was convicted of burglary based on circumstantial evidence including stolen articles and shoes found at his abandoned campsite, footprints leading from the burglarized house toward the camp, and his possession of a stolen shirt three months later. The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment, concluding that the trial court committed error by admitting testimony identifying a watch found at the camp as belonging to another person whose name had been removed and replaced with one similar to the defendant's alias. The court reasoned that this evidence was irrelevant to proving occupancy of the camp and created a strong inference of the defendant's involvement in an uncharged burglary, which was prejudicial in a case resting on meager circumstantial evidence where the defendant had prior felony convictions affecting his credibility.

criminal lawprocedure