This case involved a dispute between Bonnie Kircher and Adelaide Kircher over whether a 1976 marital settlement agreement (as modified by a 1987 stipulation) required Vincent Kircher's estate to continue spousal support payments to Bonnie after his death, and whether his widow Adelaide was personally liable for those payments. The trial court ruled that the modified agreement waived Family Code section 4337's termination of support upon death and that Adelaide was liable up to the value of real property held in joint tenancy with Vincent at his death under Probate Code sections 13550-13551. Adelaide appealed, arguing the agreement did not provide for post-death support and that the joint tenancy property did not fall within the statutory liability provisions. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the modified agreement's language explicitly continued support until Bonnie's death or remarriage and that the joint tenancy assets were covered by the Probate Code provisions.
In this consolidated appeal, Jennifer Moore challenged trial court rulings in her lawsuit against Richard Hatfield, his controlled corporations including AFC, and various promissory noteholders. Moore's derivative claims alleged that the high-interest notes were usurious under the California Constitution, seeking recovery of interest payments and declaratory relief, while also involving alter ego allegations and a disputed good-faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. The court affirmed the judgment on the pleadings for the noteholders, holding that AFC, as a licensed financial lender, was exempt from usury restrictions because the Legislature provided a broad class-based exemption for such entities acting within their license. It reversed the good-faith settlement order, finding error in that determination. The reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of usury exemptions and Moore's standing limited to AFC.
The case involved appellants challenging the University of California Regents' certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for seven related campus development projects, including the Student Athlete High Performance Center as the first phase of seismic and renovation work on the California Memorial Stadium, and the approval of that Center project. The trial court denied their petition for a writ of mandate, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the Regents complied with both the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court reasoned that although the Center is located within an earthquake fault zone, it does not constitute an "addition" or "alteration" to the Stadium under the Alquist-Priolo Act and thus is not subject to the statute's value restrictions on such projects. The court further concluded that the EIR satisfied CEQA by providing sufficient details on the projects' environmental impacts along with feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.
This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Robert Shippman, an inmate serving a 15-to-life sentence for the second-degree murder of his wife, challenging the Board of Parole Hearings' denial of parole on grounds that he remains an unreasonable risk to public safety. The court denied the petition, upholding the Board's decision. The core reasoning was that the commitment offense was especially heinous, involving the shooting of his estranged wife after forcing her into a discussion, combined with evidence of petitioner's lack of full insight into his actions and the ongoing risk he posed, which was supported by the record under applicable regulations. Factors favoring suitability, such as his age, clean prison record, and vocational skills, did not outweigh the unsuitability factors.
In People v. Norton, the defendant was convicted of felony domestic violence after pleading no contest, and he appealed on the grounds that evidence obtained during a warrantless police entry into his girlfriend's apartment violated his Fourth Amendment rights; he also sought additional presentence conduct credits under amended Penal Code section 4019. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers' entry was justified under the emergency aid exception because the girlfriend had called police to report vandalism by her boyfriend, the defendant appeared agitated at the door and gave inconsistent information, and she did not respond when officers called for her inside the dark apartment. The court further held that the 2009 amendments to section 4019 apply retroactively to reduce conduct credits for defendants whose judgments were not yet final, entitling Norton to additional credits. The ruling rested on the facts presented at the preliminary hearing showing an exigent circumstance for the welfare check and on precedents interpreting the retroactivity of ameliorative sentencing changes.
The case involved a dispute over how Contra Costa County Animal Services calculated the required holding period for stray dogs under Food and Agricultural Code section 31108(a), specifically whether Saturdays counted as "business days" when the shelters were open. Plaintiffs challenged the county's practice of including Saturdays in the holding period calculation, arguing it violated the statute, after one plaintiff's dog was adopted out before the proper period ended. The court decided that the term "business days" does not include Saturdays, reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The reasoning was based on the ordinary meaning of "business days" as weekdays excluding weekends and holidays, and the statute's context distinguishing business days from weekend days.
