The Law Will Not Save Us

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies reminds us that the rule of law exists in the United States primarily to conceal politics; that is, one cannot rely on having “the law” on one’s side if politics are opposed. Margulies illustrates this point by replacing “the lawyers reviewed the law and decided” with “the high priests studied the entrails and decided”—a substitution that ultimately yields the same results.

Read More

Fenimore v. The Regents of the University of California

Docket: B289797(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court held that the foundation of the ruling was an incorrect timing computation about the statute of limitations. In this case, the Hospitals conceded that the trial court's timing computation was in error and the statute of limitations did not bar plaintiff's motion for leave to file his second amended complaint.

California v. Cota

Docket: G056850(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Raymond J. Ikola

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Emmanuel Cota was convicted by jury of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1)1 and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 2). As to both counts, the jury also found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a total term of six years, comprised of three years for assault with a deadly weapon in count 1 and a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement attached to that count. The court imposed a concurrent sentence on count 2 but stayed the term under Penal Code section 654. On appeal, defendant argued his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in count 1 and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury in count 2 were different statements of the same offense and his dual convictions violated Penal Code section 954. He requested the Court of Appeal either vacate his count 2 conviction or remand his case to the trial court with directions to strike one of his duplicative convictions and its attending great bodily injury enhancement. The Attorney General contended defendant’s dual assault convictions should be affirmed because they were legally and factually separate offenses. After review, the Court concluded assault with a deadly weapon and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury were the same offense, stated differently, and based on the record in this case, defendant’s dual assault convictions violated section 954 because both convictions were based on the same conduct. Accordingly, the Court vacated defendant’s conviction for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury in count 2 and the great bodily injury enhancement attached to this count. In all other respects, judgment was affirmed.

People v. Vasquez

Docket: B295698(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Moor

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On appeal, defendant claimed that his sentence for mayhem in count 2 must be stayed under Penal Code section 654, because it was part of a continuous course of conduct and committed with the same criminal intent as the attempted murder in count 1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence and agreed with the People that, although the offenses occurred in close proximity, substantial evidence supported the finding that defendant had a separate intent when he stabbed the victim than he did when he bit her.

Thimon v. City of Newark

Docket: A152093(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Thimon, 14 years old, was crossing Cherry Street in Newark, when she was hit by a car driven by Soudachanh. Thimon was seriously injured and sued the city, asserting that the intersection lacked any mechanisms to alert a driver of a pedestrian’s use of the crosswalk and noting the “forced use of an unprotected, uncontrolled crosswalk particularly at a time of year and time of day when glare from the morning sun obscures visibility of pedestrians” for more than four lanes of commuter traffic traveling at 45 mph. The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city. The court noted Soudachanh’s negligence in continuing to drive, despite being blinded by glare; a public entity is not required to assume that third parties will act negligently. Newark presented evidence regarding each of Thimon’s allegedly dangerous features. A study by a consulting company conducted shortly after the accident, based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, concluded a traffic signal was not warranted. Thimon did not explain how Newark’s painting of lines demarcating the crosswalk, with signs warning motorists of the pedestrian crossing, “increased or intensified” the risk of injury. The lack of any similar collisions over 10 years preceding the accident indicated that Thimon’s injury was caused entirely by the driver's negligence and not by any dangerous condition of public property.