Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

California v. Sanchez

Docket: E072647(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Menetrez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Victor Sanchez was charged with first degree murder, but pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 to vacate that conviction. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that Sanchez was ineligible for relief because he was not convicted of murder. After review, the Court of Appeal joined other courts that held section 1170.95 did not apply to defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The Court also rejected Sanchez’s argument that section 1170.95 violated equal protection.

Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Tanaka

Docket: C083430(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Vance W. Raye

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Appellant Heather Robinson Tanaka’s great-grandfather purchased a subdivided parcel that had been part of a larger riparian tract but was no longer contiguous to water. Riparian rights can persist in land sold under such circumstances, though the grantee cannot acquire riparian rights any greater than those held by the grantor. The question presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether the parties intended the grantee to receive riparian rights in such a transfer. "The clearest expression of intent is when a deed expressly conveys the riparian rights to the noncontiguous parcel, in which case the parcel retains its riparian status. However, where the deed is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is admissible on the question." Here, the trial court, after considering the language of the deed at issue and extrinsic evidence, concluded the conveyance to Tanaka’s great-grandfather did not convey riparian rights. As a consequence, Tanaka had no rights to divert water from Middle River onto her small, approximately 106-acre parcel that has been used for farmland for 130 years. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion and reversed.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration v. Superior Court

Docket: B294400(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Brian M. Hoffstadt

Areas of Law: Tax Law

A taxpayer cannot avoid Article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution's "pay first" rule by alleging, in a claim for declaratory relief invoking Government Code section 11350, that the tax regulation giving rise to his unpaid tax assessment is invalid. The Court of Appeal held that this is the result dictated by the canons of statutory construction; the purpose underlying section 11350 does not justify exempting declaratory relief otherwise subject to section 32's "pay first" rule from its auspices; and the California Supreme Court has already strongly suggested that section 11350 must not be read as an exemption from section 32's "pay first" rule. To the extent language in Pacific Motor Transport Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 230 can be read to suggest a contrary answer, the court respectfully disagreed with Pacific Motor. Accordingly, the court granted the writ petition challenging the trial court's order overruling the demurrer in this case, and directed the trial court to enter a new and different order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.