CA Pub. Decisions

1. In re SEAN A Part-I
   Dec 31, 2010
   The juvenile court declared Sean A. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed him on probation after Sean admitted to possessing a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Sean appeals, contending that the juvenile cour…
2. TALLEY v. VALUATION COUNSELORS GROUP, INC Part-II
   Dec 31, 2010
   Since 2001, this long running dispute has traveled back and forth between state and federal courts at the respective trial and appellate levels. We now have before us the trial court's appealable orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal of an action, in which plaintiff,…
3. TALLEY v. VALUATION COUNSELORS GROUP, INC Part-I
   Dec 31, 2010
   Since 2001, this long running dispute has traveled back and forth between state and federal courts at the respective trial and appellate levels. We now have before us the trial court's appealable orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal of an action, in which plaintiff,…
4. PEOPLE v. SMITH
   Dec 31, 2010
   A jury found defendant Larry Steven Smith guilty of rape of an intoxicated woman (count I), rape of an unconscious woman (count II), and misdemeanor sexual battery. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for eight years (the upper term on count I, with the terms on the oth…
5. PEOPLE v. WOODS
   Dec 31, 2010
   Defendant, Vincent Woods, appeals from his convictions for cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor marijuana possession. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).) In the published portion of this opinion, we address the issue of whether, when…
6. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC v. SUPERIOR COURT OF
   Dec 31, 2010
   In the underlying action, real parties in interest sought to recover civil penalties from petitioner Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot) under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ((PAGA); Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).[1] The trial court overruled Home Depot's…
7. BLIX STREET RECORDS, INC v. CASSIDY
   Dec 31, 2010
   Appellants appeal from a judgment based on, inter alia, a determination that they were judicially estopped from denying that they are bound by a settlement agreement. We hold that even if the settlement agreement had not been binding, appellants were judicially estopped from deny…
8. In re V.M.,
   Dec 31, 2010
   The trial court was not justified in asserting dependency jurisdiction over the child in this case, who had never been abused or neglected by anyone. The child, V.M., came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services after her father asserted his right to cu…
9. PEOPLE v. NESBITT Part-II
   Dec 31, 2010
   This case is closer to the recent decision in Jackson v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1051 (Jackson). In that case, the defendant was sentenced following judgments of conviction on two felony counts. (Id. p. 1056.) The defendant thereafter filed a petition for a writ of …
10. PEOPLE v. NESBITT Part-I
    Dec 31, 2010
    Defendant and appellant Michael Nesbitt (defendant) was convicted on six felony counts based upon the sexual abuse of three of his children.[1] On appeal, defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order entered in the minutes dismissing…
11. PARTNERS v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Part-II
    Dec 31, 2010
    The Mello-Roos Act itself also supports the conclusion that payment of proceeds from Mello-Roos bonds by the CFD constitutes a payment of money by a political subdivision of the state to a developer. The Act is â€
12. PARTNERS v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
    Dec 31, 2010
    Azusa Land Partners (ALP) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ALP seeks to vacate a determination by respondent Department of Industrial Relations (Department) that a planned community project is a â€
13. SCHUMAN v. IGNATIN
    Dec 31, 2010
    This case involves a dispute among property owners in a general plan development of 68 homes in Los Angeles. The owners of one of the properties, Allan Ignatin and Janet Sobell (collectively, Ignatin),[1] want to build a house that other property owners believe would violate reco…
14. CITY OF SANTA ROSA v. PATEL
    Dec 31, 2010
    These appeals, consolidated on this court's motion, follow the trial court's entry of an order awarding the City of Santa Rosa and the People of the State of California (collectively, the City) attorney fees in this red light abatement action. In appeal No. A124199, the C…
15. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Part-I
    Sep 27, 2010
    Charter schools are public schools that operate independently from, but with oversight by, the school districts or county boards of education that approve their charters. Before 2002, charter schools operated without geographic restrictions; a school chartered in Los Angeles coul…
16. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Part-II
    Sep 27, 2010
    Charter schools are public schools that operate independently from, but with oversight by, the school districts or county boards of education that approve their charters. Before 2002, charter schools operated without geographic restrictions; a school chartered in Los Angeles coul…
17. CELLPHONE FEE TERMINATION Part-I
    Sep 27, 2010
    This is a consolidated appeal in one of several coordinated class actions that challenge wireless telephone carriers' imposition of early termination fees (ETF's) on customers seeking to cancel cellular telephone contracts. The defendant/respondent in this proceeding is C…
18. CELLPHONE FEE TERMINATION Part-II
    Sep 27, 2010
    This is a consolidated appeal in one of several coordinated class actions that challenge wireless telephone carriers' imposition of early termination fees (ETF's) on customers seeking to cancel cellular telephone contracts. The defendant/respondent in this proceeding is C…
19. TUCKER v. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES
    Sep 27, 2010
    In this proposed class action, plaintiffs allege defendant cell phone providers, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cingular Wireless LLC (collectively defendants) violated the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof., § 17200 et seq.) by selling â€
20. In re D.G
    Sep 27, 2010
    Appellant D.G., a ward of the court, was placed on juvenile probation after he and another person were seen burglarizing a home. Neither appellant's current burglary nor his past offenses were committed near a school or involved classmates or other juveniles. Yet in imposing …