Table of Contents | City of Chula Vista v. Sandoval Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law | Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County Civil Procedure, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use | People v. Lima Criminal Law | People v. Son Criminal Law | Sharufa v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC Entertainment & Sports Law, Personal Injury, Products Liability | County of Santa Clara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Public Benefits |
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | Before She Died, “Jane Roe” Said She Was Never Really Pro-Life: Does It Matter? | MICHAEL C. DORF | | Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the revelation that before she died, Norma McCorvey—the woman who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade and who had subsequently become a prominent spokesperson for overturning the decision—said she was never really pro-life after all. Using this example, Dorf explains why, in some ways, the individual plaintiff’s identity does not matter for the purpose of deciding an important legal issue, yet in other ways, the plaintiff’s underlying story can be very important for other reasons. | Read More |
|
California Courts of Appeal Opinions | City of Chula Vista v. Sandoval | Docket: C080711(Third Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Vance W. Raye Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law | The Court of Appeal summed up the issue before it on appeal in this matter: a fight between the tax entities who negotiated favorable passthrough agreements before their redevelopment agencies were dissolved, and those who did not, for their pro rata share of the residual pool of money in the redevelopment property tax fund left for distribution after the successor agencies first paid the passthrough agreements in full, enforceable obligations, and administrative costs. Seven cities filed a petition for mandamus and declaratory relief against Tracy Sandoval, the auditor-controller for the County of San Diego (Auditor) challenging the methodology the Auditor used to distribute the residual pool of former tax increment, a method that favored San Diego County and, at least, three community college districts, all of whom had passthrough agreements with their former redevelopment agencies. The trial court agreed with Cities and granted their petition. Auditor appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded there was no plain meaning to be attributed to the applicable statutory language. The Court felt compelled nonetheless to construe the "mangled" statutes as it found them, and offered direction to auditor-controllers throughout California. The Court accepted nearly all of Cities’ contentions, including their premise that the fundamental purpose of Health & Safety Code section 34188, was to include passthrough payments as part of a taxing entity’s Assembly Bill No. 8 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) pro rata share and thereby equalize the tax distributions to those taxing entities with favorable passthrough agreements and those without. The Court reversed the trial court's decision to grant the Cities' petition for a writ of mandate. "Without deciding on the constitutionality of Cities’ interpretation of the statutes, we can say their interpretation raises substantial doubt as to the constitutionality of Cities’ methodology, adding support to our conclusion the trial court erred and Auditor’s methodology must prevail." | | Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County | Docket: A156562(First Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Miller Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use | The Insalacos own property atop of a slope. At the bottom of the slope is Wilkie Creek. Hope Lutheran Church owns property on the other side of the creek. After a landslide made their house uninhabitable, the Insalacos sued the Church and adjoining landowners, including the Du/Wongs. They alleged that water runoff from the Church caused the creek to rise, which caused their backyard to flood. The flooding saturated the soil in their backyard, which caused the landslide. The Du/Wongs filed a cross-complaint, alleging tort causes of action related to the landslide and seeking indemnification. The court granted the Church summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed The trial court erred in denying a timely motion by the Insalacos for a continuance to take additional discovery (a site inspection) and oppose the summary judgment motion. They presented a detailed declaration from their attorney explaining the particular facts essential to opposing the motion that may exist but could not then be presented. As to the Du/Wongs, concededly material facts were disputed. The Church placed at issue how much rain fell on the date of the incident, whether there are “two ways in which water flow in a creek could destabilize a slope,” and whether the channel of Wilkie Creek is stable and shows no evidence of recent erosion. | | People v. Lima | Docket: B293030(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Kim Areas of Law: Criminal Law | Defendant challenged his conviction for attempted murder in light of Senate Bill No. 1437 which abrogated the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant argued that, even if SB 1437 did not abrogate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to attempted murder, the trial court and prosecutor committed errors. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the trial court so it may exercise its discretion whether to strike any of defendant's Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements; ordered the sentencing minute order modified to reflect that defendant was awarded 116 days of conduct credit; and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. | | People v. Son | Docket: F076252(Fifth Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Smith Areas of Law: Criminal Law | Defendant raised several claims of error related to his conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeal rejected defendant's contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in failing sua sponte to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; there was no impropriety in the trial court's inquiry and rulings; and imposition of court operations and facilities assessments, without first giving defendant an opportunity to request an ability to pay hearing to show he cannot pay them, is unconstitutional. The court remanded to give defendant an opportunity to request an ability to pay hearing. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. | | Sharufa v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC | Docket: H044064(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Adrienne M. Grover Areas of Law: Entertainment & Sports Law, Personal Injury, Products Liability | While going down Festival’s waterslide, Sharufa inadvertently slipped from a seated position on an inner tube onto his stomach. When he entered the pool below, his feet hit the bottom with enough force to fracture his hip and pelvis. Sharufa sued for negligence, product liability (including breach of express and implied warranties), and negligent misrepresentation. Sharufa’s opposition to a summary judgment motion included a mechanical engineer's opinion that going down the slide on one’s stomach could lead to injury because it would cause a person to enter the water with more velocity than sliding on one’s back. The court found that the engineer did not qualify as an expert on the relevant subject matter and granted Festival summary adjudication on all but the negligent misrepresentation claim. Sharufa dismissed that claim without prejudice to allow an appeal. The court of appeal affirmed as to Sharufa’s negligence cause of action, Festival owes a heightened duty of care as a common carrier; but there was no evidence of breach. The court reversed as to Sharufa’s products liability causes of action; the record is insufficient to show the park provided primarily a service rather than use of a product. The purpose of riding a waterslide is “entertainment and amusement,” but where a product is intended for entertainment, to allow a supplier to be characterized as an “amusement service” provider would risk weakening product liability protections for consumers. | | County of Santa Clara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board | Docket: H046562(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: May 27, 2020 Judge: Nathan D. Mihara Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Public Benefits | Justice, employed as a workers’ compensation claims adjuster since 1991, fell at work in 2011 and injured her left knee. She later developed problems in her right knee, which was found to be a compensable consequence of the first injury. In 2012-2013 Justice had total bilateral knee replacement. Dr. Anderson, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that there was significant preinjury degeneration in both knees, that knee replacement was not required because of the meniscus tear, and that the fall “hasten[ed]” the need for knee replacement by “lighting up the underlying pathology.” Anderson apportioned 50 percent of the bilateral knee disability to the nonindustrial, preexisting degeneration. The workers’ compensation judge determined that Justice had sustained permanent partial disability of 48 percent, worth $59,110.00, stating that “the need for these surgeries was at least partially non-industrial. … the surgeries appear to have significantly increased [Justice’s] ability to walk and engage in weight-bearing activities. The judge stated that before the 2017 Hikida decision, he would have awarded permanent disability with 50% apportionment but that Hikida precluded apportionment. The Appeals Board affirmed. The court of appeal annulled the decision. Justice's permanent disability should have been apportioned between industrial and nonindustrial causes. Hikida, in which a medical treatment resulted in a new compensable consequential injury, is distinguishable. Here, there was unrebutted substantial medical evidence that Justice’s permanent disability was caused, in part, by preexisting pathology. Apportionment was required. Whether or not the workplace injury “directly caused” the need for surgery, the apportionment statutes demand that the disability be sorted among direct and indirect causal factors. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|