Martin Joseph Jenkins

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.

family lawproperty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

environmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

The case involved Lou Suriyan Sisuphan, the director of finance at a car dealership, who removed nearly $30,000 in customer payments from the company safe in order to blame a coworker whose performance he had criticized. Sisuphan was convicted of embezzlement under Penal Code section 508 after he later returned the money and confessed. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury on a defense under Penal Code section 512 for voluntary return of the property before charges and should have admitted evidence of the return to show lack of intent to keep the funds. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, concluding that section 512 does not create such a defense, that intent to restore the property is irrelevant once conversion has occurred, and that evidence of later restoration does not negate the fraudulent intent element of embezzlement.

criminal law

This case involved the appeal of Henry Wallace's jury convictions under former Penal Code section 290 for willfully failing to provide notice of a new address (count one), failing to register after changing his address (count two), and failing to complete his annual registration update (count three), based on his prior sex offense convictions that required lifetime registration. The court reversed the convictions on counts two and three while affirming the judgment on count one and the prior strike allegations. The core reasoning was that the registration and annual update duties under the statute applied only to persons residing in California, and the evidence showed Wallace had moved out of state by the relevant times, relieving him of those obligations though the separate notification duty remained; the court also found instructional error regarding the residency element for counts two and three.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Richard Thom, who was charged with first-degree residential burglary after entering a carport attached to an apartment building in Daly City, where he was seen tampering with a parked vehicle and removing a stereo. The jury convicted him of first-degree burglary under Penal Code section 460, subdivision (a), among other offenses, and the trial court imposed a seven-year sentence after striking one prior strike conviction. Thom appealed, arguing that the carport did not qualify as part of an inhabited dwelling under the burglary statutes and that the trial court's jury instructions improperly directed a verdict. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the carport met both the functionally interconnected and immediately contiguous test and the reasonable belief test for being part of the dwelling's outer boundary, as it formed the ground floor of the apartment structure with shared walls and support. The court also found no instructional error, as the determination that an attached carport constitutes part of the dwelling was a legal question properly addressed by the instructions after the jury found entry.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiff Brian P. Burns suing Neiman Marcus after his secretary used forged or unauthorized checks drawn on his personal bank account to pay down her personal store credit card balances totaling over $1 million. Plaintiff alleged common law negligence, claiming the retailer breached a duty of ordinary care by failing to inquire into the secretary's authorization when accepting third-party checks for her debts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. The court held that Neiman Marcus owed no duty to the plaintiff because the circumstances did not present obvious signs of fraud on the face of the checks, distinguishing retailers from banks that process high volumes of checks. The ruling relied on precedents limiting duties of inquiry to situations with clear indicators of wrongdoing.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the State Department of Health Care Services seeking reimbursement of over $200,000 in Medi-Cal benefits paid to Merlee Dowe before her death, by filing a creditor's claim against her estate. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the Department on the ground that the claim was timely because the estate's personal representative, Mary Wooten, had not provided the required notice of death under Probate Code section 9202, which would have started a shorter filing period. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting arguments that collateral estoppel or prior concessions barred the evidence on notice, that procedural errors prejudiced the estate, or that other Probate Code sections should have applied instead. The decision turned on findings that no proper notice was sent and that the three-year statute of limitations therefore governed rather than the shorter probate deadlines.

healthcarepropertyprocedure

The case involved a state prisoner suing prison medical staff, including a dietician, for failing to provide a medically prescribed special diet for his diverticulitis after transfer to a new facility, resulting in symptoms like dizziness and stomach issues. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant dietician and dismissed other defendants for lack of proper service. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that evidence of the prisoner's initial attempts to file a complaint within the six-month limitations period after rejection of his government claim raised triable issues of timeliness under the Government Claims Act and the prison-delivery rule. The court remanded for further proceedings to address those factual questions and the prisoner's right of access to the courts.

civil rightshealthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a lawsuit by Peninsula Guardians, Inc. against the Peninsula Health Care District and Mills-Peninsula Health Service alleging that the District exceeded its statutory authority under Health and Safety Code section 32126 by entering a 50-year ground lease for construction of a new hospital and that the District made illegal campaign expenditures under Government Code section 54964 to support a special election on the project. The trial court sustained demurrers to the lease claims, granted summary judgment to the District on the expenditure claim, and denied the plaintiff's motion for relief to amend its complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed the rulings on the merits, holding that the lease fell within the District's powers because the statute permits leasing of hospitals it has acquired or constructed and that the expenditures were lawful, but reversed the denial of relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and remanded to allow amendment of the complaint.

healthcareelectionspropertyprocedure

The case involved Tracy Arthur Stone's appeal of his convictions for abducting and sexually assaulting two young children. Stone argued that the advisements and waivers he received were insufficient when he stipulated to admitting one victim's grand jury testimony in place of her trial appearance and to having the sanity-phase evidence presented before the court ruled on guilt. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the stipulations did not amount to a slow plea of guilty and thus did not trigger full constitutional requirements for self-incrimination advisements or explanations of potential punishment under precedents like Bunnell and Wright. Even assuming the stipulations qualified as a submission, the court found no prejudice from any omitted advisements, as the record showed defendant was informed of key rights including jury trial and confrontation, and the evidence supported the findings. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Oliver Sipple's invasion of privacy claims against out-of-state newspapers that published articles stating he was homosexual after he helped thwart an assassination attempt on President Ford. The trial court quashed service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that newspapers receive no special First Amendment preference or privilege when determining in personam jurisdiction over tort claims. Applying standard jurisdictional rules, it found the defendants' minimal circulation and lack of other contacts with California insufficient to support jurisdiction.

free speechprocedure

The case involved a landowner (Cushman) seeking to quiet title to an expanded easement across neighboring property (owned by Davis) to allow residential road access for subdividing his parcel, rather than the limited agricultural use made by his predecessor. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the owner held only a prescriptive appurtenant easement limited to seasonal orchard servicing (five trips each in February and July) and could not expand it to residential use by subdividees. The core reasoning was that easements by prescription are defined by the historic pattern of use, presumptively appurtenant rather than in gross, and may not be enlarged in kind or by unreasonable additional burden absent new adverse use or grant; no public dedication was shown either.

property

This juvenile court case involved a petition alleging that minor Stanley E. committed robbery and grand theft from the person after an incident at a fair where he and another boy obtained money from a victim through threats. The trial court found the robbery allegation untrue but convicted the minor of extortion as a lesser included offense. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that extortion was not a necessarily included offense of the charged robbery under either the statutory definitions or the specific allegations in the petition, which lacked any reference to the victim's consent as required for extortion. The decision rested on due process principles prohibiting conviction for an uncharged offense not necessarily included in the charged crime, resulting in an acquittal on the robbery charge as well.

criminal lawprocedure