John J. Miller

This case arose from a divorce proceeding in which a temporary restraining order prohibited either spouse from transferring or disposing of assets, including Michelle Hahn's status as beneficiary on her husband Charles's life insurance policies. Charles changed the beneficiary designations to his sister Denise in violation of the order, then killed Michelle and himself. After Northwestern Mutual interpleaded the policy proceeds, the district court ruled that Denise was entitled to them because it lacked authority to enforce the order after Charles's death. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that the beneficiary changes violated the valid restraining order intended to preserve the status quo, and that the court's equitable powers permitted it to set aside the changes even after Charles's death, making the proceeds the property of Michelle.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a union member who sued her union and its officials after it accepted a settlement offer resolving her grievance over termination from employment without proceeding to arbitration as she requested. The plaintiff alleged that the union breached the collective bargaining agreement, violated implied covenants of good faith, committed fraud, and engaged in other misconduct by failing to fairly represent her interests in the grievance process. The court determined that the complaint did not state a viable claim under federal law for breach of the union's duty of fair representation and that the state-law tort and contract claims were preempted by federal law governing this area. The superior court's dismissal of the complaint was therefore affirmed.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case concerned the distribution of excess proceeds from a tax sale of real property after satisfaction of delinquent taxes and costs, specifically whether a claimant who held only a one-seventh ownership interest was entitled to the full excess amount as the sole filer. The court held that the claimant received only its proportional one-seventh share, affirming the county board's decision. The reasoning centered on the principle that rights to excess proceeds vest proportionally among parties of interest at the moment of the tax sale, with filing a claim serving only to assert existing rights rather than allowing succession to unclaimed portions of others, consistent with statutory language and rules governing unclaimed property in analogous contexts.

taxesproperty

The case involved attorney Carolyn Bobb, who was called for jury duty in a criminal matter and held in contempt by the municipal court for refusing to answer questions about whether she had a husband and his occupation, which the trial judge posed only to female prospective jurors. Bobb petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the gender-specific questioning violated equal protection principles under the California Constitution. The superior court denied relief and upheld the contempt finding. On appeal, the Court of Appeal examined whether an order based on a discriminatory pattern of questioning exceeded the court's jurisdiction, drawing on precedents such as Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Hamilton v. Alabama, and noted that California applies a distinct standard of review for gender-based classifications. The court analyzed the voir dire process and the scope of contempt authority in light of these constitutional protections.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a deputy district attorney who was stabbed by a prisoner during a parole hearing at San Quentin Prison and sued the State of California for negligence in allowing the prisoner to obtain a knife. The trial court dismissed the claim, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that Government Code section 844.6 grants public entities absolute immunity from liability for injuries proximately caused by prisoners, with no exception for concurrent negligence or distinctions between discretionary and ministerial acts by state employees. This immunity applies even in cases involving visitors to correctional facilities and overrides general tort principles that might otherwise impose liability on the state.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an attorney appointed under Penal Code section 987 to represent an indigent defendant in a murder trial who sought additional compensation after the court awarded less than the amount claimed for over 1,500 hours of work. The attorney sued the county on theories of quantum meruit, breach of oral or implied contract, and unconstitutional taking, but the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, ruling that compensation for such appointments is purely statutory and does not create contractual rights unless a pre-performance agreement is made under section 987.2(b). The court held that review of the trial judge's compensation determination must occur through a writ of mandate rather than a separate civil action, because the statutory scheme relies on the judge's firsthand observation of the factors listed in section 987.3 and mandate provides an adequate remedy.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether keypunching services provided by Intellidata Inc., a computer service bureau, to its customers constituted taxable sales of tangible personal property under California's Sales and Use Tax Law or nontaxable services. Plaintiff paid sales tax on its services and sued the State Board of Equalization for a refund after exhausting administrative remedies. The trial court ruled against plaintiff, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the transactions were taxable sales because administrative regulations specifically treated agreements for keypunching as contracts for the fabrication of punched cards, and the statutes impose tax on gross receipts from sales of tangible personal property, including items produced to a customer's special order; the primary value from data processing did not change the tangible nature of the cards transferred.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In re Fain concerns whether the California Board of Prison Terms could rescind an inmate's parole release date for William Archie Fain, who had been convicted of first-degree murder, multiple rapes, kidnappings, and other crimes in 1967 and later escape-related offenses. After Fain received an initial parole date of 1976 that was later advanced, the board held a rescission hearing and set a new date of 1982, citing fundamental error in the original grant, the gravity of the offenses, Fain's criminal history, and public opposition as new information. The Court of Appeal held that the board possessed inherent authority to reconsider its decisions and that its rules permitted rescission for new information indicating parole was inappropriate, including public outcry that signaled community concerns, though not on public opposition alone. The court affirmed the board's action as based on permissible factors such as public safety and assimilation rather than solely external pressure. The decision addressed related claims including due process and ex post facto issues but found no violation in the rescission process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Steven Wolozon, who had been committed to a state hospital after a 1976 finding of not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of forced oral copulation and assault with intent to commit murder. In 1981, the district attorney petitioned under Penal Code section 1026.5 to extend the commitment, and Wolozon moved to represent himself at the jury trial on whether he posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others due to mental disease. The trial court denied the self-representation motion after considering psychiatric reports, and a jury extended the commitment. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the denial violated Wolozon's Faretta right to self-representation because his technical legal knowledge was irrelevant to assessing a knowing and intelligent waiver, and further ruling that in section 1026.5 extension proceedings the committed person has a due process right to confront and cross-examine adverse psychiatrists both at trial and in pretrial hearings on the waiver issue.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Hess v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission, landlords Victor and Helen Hess refused to rent a duplex to an unmarried couple, John Pryor and Debbie Rodgers, after learning of their marital status, despite the couple qualifying financially when their incomes were combined; the landlords applied stricter financial criteria to unmarried applicants than to married ones and had previously rented to a similar married couple. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission found this violated Government Code section 12955, which prohibits housing discrimination based on marital status, and awarded $1,000 in damages to each complainant. The trial court denied the landlords' petition for writ of administrative mandamus, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the practice constituted impermissible discrimination on the basis of marital status, rejecting arguments that it was merely a neutral business practice, and upholding the damages award as supported by evidence of actual losses and emotional distress.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between the Jefferson Classroom Teachers Association and the Jefferson Elementary School District over the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement provision (Article IV section A(1)(e)) that provided differential pay for teachers absent due to illness or accident after exhausting regular sick leave. The Association argued that the clause entitled teachers to such pay for any absences, including sporadic or noncontinuous ones, up to five months. The District maintained that the provision applied only to extended or protracted illnesses continuing past the exhaustion of sick leave. The trial court granted summary judgment to the District, finding that the contract language, negotiation history, and prior practices limited coverage to continuous extended absences, and the appellate court reviewed that determination.

labor & employment

The case involved two defendants, Masten and Matilton, charged with kidnapping, rape, oral copulation, and assault with a deadly weapon after an incident in which they approached a stranded couple by the Trinity River, fired gunshots at their car, abducted the wife, and one defendant sexually assaulted her before an accident occurred. Matilton pleaded guilty to kidnapping and assault and received a 10-year sentence; Masten was convicted by jury on the sex and kidnapping charges (with a firearm enhancement) and sentenced to 17 years and 8 months. On appeal, the court held that Matilton could not raise ineffective assistance of counsel without complying with Penal Code section 1237.5 but rejected his sentencing challenge, finding consecutive terms permissible under a plea bargain; for Masten, it found sufficient evidence of asportation and intent for kidnapping, upheld the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence and unanimity, and addressed related sentencing rules under sections 654 and 667.6.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two pulp mill corporations that had entered into long-term contracts with a municipal water district for the supply of water at specified rates, after which the district's board adopted an ordinance declaring those rate provisions invalid and imposing new rates. The trial court ruled in favor of the district, concluding that it lacked authority to bind itself to fixed rates in long-term contracts because that would improperly surrender its statutory rate-setting power under Water Code section 71616, and that the specific rate provision controlled over the general contracting authority in section 71592. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutes could be harmonized to permit the district to enter into binding contracts that set rates, provided they substantially comply with the criteria in section 71616, and that the district was therefore bound by the agreements it had operated under for nearly two decades. The core reasoning was that rules of statutory construction favor reconciliation of provisions where possible rather than finding an irreconcilable conflict that would nullify the contracting power.

business & regulatory

Leona Moeller sued Dennis Fleming, the owner of property at 4888 Kingbrook Drive in San Jose, for injuries from tripping on an irregular break in the city sidewalk in front of the premises, alleging negligence in maintaining the sidewalk. The trial court granted Fleming's motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Fleming's evidence was legally insufficient. The court reasoned that the pleadings raised multiple theories of liability, including creation of an artificial condition, violation of city ordinances (negligence per se), and maintenance of a natural condition like tree roots that caused the break with the owner's knowledge. Fleming addressed only the first two theories and failed to negate the third, which remained viable under the Sprecher v. Adamson Companies standard requiring property owners to exercise reasonable care regarding natural conditions on their land that could harm others. The judgment was therefore reversed.

torts & liability

In Mouser v. Superior Court, the petitioner faced charges of unlawful cultivation and possession for sale of marijuana; after the prosecution rested, the trial court granted his codefendants' Penal Code section 1118.1 motion for judgment of acquittal but initially denied his, then granted a mistrial and later purported to correct the record by treating the ruling as a mistrial instead. The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to bar retrial, arguing that the section 1118.1 acquittal had already terminated the case. The Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that the trial court had properly applied the acquittal standard, dismissed the jury on that basis, and could not later convert the ruling into a mistrial; Penal Code section 1118.2 expressly bars further prosecution after such an acquittal, and retrying the petitioner would violate double jeopardy under the federal and state constitutions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Lockheed seeking indemnification from M.B. Electronics for a $115,000 settlement paid to the heirs of M.B.'s employee, who was electrocuted while repairing equipment at Lockheed's facility pursuant to an unsigned purchase order containing an indemnity clause. The trial court granted summary judgment to M.B. on the ground that Labor Code section 3864 barred any duty to indemnify absent a written agreement executed prior to the injury. The Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that the term "executed" requires the agreement to be fully performed on both sides and signed, and that acceptance by commencement of performance does not create an executed written indemnity agreement under the statute.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned California regulations under the AFDC program that presumed a nonadoptive stepparent's community property interest in income was unconditionally available to support stepchildren living in the home, even if not actually used for that purpose. Appellants, mothers whose AFDC benefits were terminated or reduced under these rules, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the regulations violated federal law requiring that only income actually available be considered in determining need. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department of Social Services. On appeal, the court reviewed the history of federal requirements under the Social Security Act and prior invalidations of similar state rules in Lewis v. Martin and Camp v. Swoap, noting that recent federal amendments had mooted future application but that the pre-amendment regulations still needed evaluation for conformity with then-existing federal standards mandating actual availability of resources.

family lawfederal power

The case concerned a divorced couple's property settlement and spousal support obligations after the wife obtained a federal bankruptcy discharge of community debts that had been assigned to her, leaving the husband personally liable to the creditors. The trial court permitted the husband to offset his payments on those debts against the wife's monthly spousal support and ordered her to use proceeds from a liquidated community asset to satisfy the remaining balances. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that state family law permitted modification of support to account for the discharged property settlement obligations and that federal bankruptcy law did not bar the state court from enforcing the dissolution judgment under these circumstances.

family lawfederal power

Synanon Foundation sued multiple counties for a refund of property taxes on its airplanes and boats, claiming exemptions based on religious, educational, and charitable use. The trial court dismissed the action under Revenue and Taxation Code section 5147 because the plaintiff failed to return the summons within one year of filing. On appeal, the court examined whether defendants' conduct—answering the complaint, responding to discovery, and proceeding without objection—could waive the statutory deadline, drawing on interpretations of the similar three-year rule in Code of Civil Procedure section 581a. The opinion concluded that section 5147's mandatory dismissal provision allows for waiver through voluntary actions indicating an intent to submit the case to trial on the merits, beyond the statute's sole explicit exception for a written stipulation extending time.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved seven investors who sought payment from California's Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund after losing money in a fraudulent scheme by licensed broker Fred Niergarth, who sold limited partnership interests in apartment buildings without actually purchasing the properties. The trial court awarded recovery to two applicants but reduced their awards by the amounts of their tax write-offs from the investments, while denying the other five applicants on the ground that the fraud did not arise from acts requiring a real estate license. On appeal, the applicants argued that tax effects should not reduce Fund recoveries and challenged the denial for the remaining applicants. The court held that the applicants had waived any tax privilege by voluntarily submitting evidence of their write-offs, noted the statutory amendment limiting recovery to actual and direct losses, and emphasized that the Fund provides only limited remedial benefits for qualifying fraud claims tied to licensed real estate activity.

business & regulatorypropertytaxesprocedure