California, July, 2009, State Case law

Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!

State Courts - California - July 1 - July 2, 2009

County of Butte v. Butte County Superior Court, C057152, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: A qualified medical marijuana patient was entitled to an adjudication in a civil action as to whether a deputy had probable cause, under Cal. Const. art. I, ? 13, to order him to destroy all but 12 of the 41 medical marijuana plants that were being grown at the patient's home for a collective of medical marijuana patients.

Search Cases for Free

Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, B209863, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Class member who failed to submit a timely claim form was collaterally estopped by judicial approval of the settlement from maintaining a legal malpractice action asserting that class counsel should have negotiated a different settlement notice procedure; such approval necessarily included a finding that the settlement notice procedure was proper.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Johndrow, C055620, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's commitment to the California Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term following a jury's finding that he was a sexually violent predator subject only to the limited review contained in Welf. & Inst. Code, ?? 6605 & 6608, did not violate his right to due process.

Search Cases for Free

Venoco, Inc. v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., No. B206207, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Insured's failure to comply with a 60-day notice requirement in a pollution buy-back provision precluded coverage because the provision was sufficiently conspicuous and proof of prejudice was not necessary; moreover, claims for long-term toxic exposure and failure to warn were excluded, and a duty to defend false claims provision did not apply.

Search Cases for Free

Chau v. Starbucks Corp., D053491, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Hughes v. Pair, S157197, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: A trustee did not sexually harass the mother of trust beneficiary because the alleged sexual harassment comments defendant made to plaintiff during a single telephone conversation and a brief statement to plaintiff in person later that day during a social event at a museum were not "pervasive or severe," within the meaning of Civ. Code, ? 51.9.

Search Cases for Free

In re Eddie L., C059237, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: In a case in which a juvenile court sustained a charge of second degree robbery while armed with a firearm against defendant minor, juvenile court did not err in selecting the upper term of five years for the robbery and adding one year for the arming enhancement. Juvenile court did what was required under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 726, subd. (c).

Search Cases for Free

People v. Farley, S024833, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Felony murder instruction based on burglary was proper because vandalism under former Pen. Code, ? 594, subd. (b)(1), was a proper basis for burglary and the assaults on the victims were not alleged as target offenses of the burglary; however, case law under Pen. Code, ? 189, applying the felony-murder merger doctrine to burglary was disapproved.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Nguyen, S154847, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's prior juvenile adjudication could be used as a prior strike in a drug and weapons case; he was not expressly within the Apprendi rule because he waived a jury trial on the issue in the current proceeding, and the lack of a jury trial right in the juvenile proceeding did not violate his rights under U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 14th Amends.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal