California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re O.M. et al. is that uncontradicted evidence of parental inability to acknowledge or address a child's malnutrition compels dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), under circumstances where the parent lacks insight into nutritional deficiencies despite hospitalization for malnutrition and cannot articulate a specific plan to prevent recurrence.

The Rule of The People v. Robinson is that Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (f) must be construed conjunctively to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who have been convicted of a qualifying sexually violent offense AND sentenced to death or life without parole, under circumstances where Senate Bill No.

The Rule of Gibbs v. County of Humboldt is that a public entity has mandatory statutory duties enforceable under Government Code section 815.6 to (1) maintain employee personnel records and allow inspection under Government Code section 31011 and Labor Code section 1198.5, and (2) timely enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 20283, under circumstances where the entity is a contracting agency with CalPERS and has failed to discharge these duties causing injury to the employee's retirement benefits.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) is that an officer's failure to inform a magistrate in a search warrant application that a DUI defendant requested a breath test does not undermine the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample, under circumstances where the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause based on objective signs of intoxication and the defendant's involvement in a fatal DUI crash.

The Rule of Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a municipal ordinance creating a monetary threshold that must be satisfied before a cause of action for unlawful detainer accrues is a permissible substantive regulation of the grounds for eviction rather than an impermissible procedural limitation on the unlawful detainer statutes, under circumstances where the ordinance does not extend the unlawful detainer timeline, does not prohibit landlords from proceeding under the state statutory timeline, and does not require landlords to take affirmative action before commencing unlawful detainer proceedings.

The Rule of Colonial Manor, Inc. v. Vilma Reyes is that a landlord cannot enforce an unlawful detainer for rent that exceeds local rent control ceilings, even against a surviving spouse who becomes an implied tenant after the original tenant's death, under circumstances where the spouse was a long-term lawful occupant known to the landlord and Costa-Hawkins does not preempt local rent control protections for implied tenancies.

The Rule of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development is that a city does not abuse its discretion in approving a mixed-use housing project without requiring a master plan when the general plan uses discretionary language ("encourage") regarding joint redevelopment and the project furthers the plan's substantive objectives for improved circulation, access, and residential uses, under circumstances where the general plan policy contains undefined terms, aspirational goals, and acknowledges practical difficulties with joint redevelopment.

The Rule of People v. Tyus is that at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a petitioner is guilty of murder under current law—it is not the petitioner's burden to prove an alternate murder theory existed, under circumstances where the petitioner has established a prima facie case for relief and was not the actual killer.

The Rule of People v. Bankers Insurance Company is that a trial court retains jurisdiction over a bail bond when defense counsel indicates there is a reason for defendant's nonappearance, conveys that reason to the court during an off-the-record discussion, and the court states on the record that based on the information given, it will not forfeit the bond, under circumstances where the court has reason to believe sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear per section 1305.1.

The Rule of Daniel Husband v. Target Corporation is that an employer cannot be charged with knowledge of an employee's undisclosed mental disability based solely on two incidents of erratic and irrational behavior, under circumstances where the behavior admits of multiple reasonable interpretations other than mental disability.

The Rule of Beale v. Department of Motor Vehicles is that the DMV cannot suspend a driver's license for refusing to take a blood alcohol test while riding an electric bicycle, under circumstances where the rider was operating an electric bicycle (not a motor vehicle) and arrested under Vehicle Code sections that do not apply to bicyclists.

The Rule of Conservatorship of R.R. is that a conservatorship initiated pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5361 begins upon "the appointment of the conservator by the superior court" on the date the court issues its reappointment order, not retroactively to the date of the prior conservatorship's automatic termination, under circumstances where conservatorship proceedings have not been completed by the automatic termination date and the court has ordered the conservatee held until proceedings are completed.

The Rule of People v. Molina is that different sex offender registration requirements for defendants convicted under Penal Code section 288(c)(1) versus section 288(a) do not violate equal protection where there is a rational basis for the disparity, under rational basis review where lifetime registration for section 288(c)(1) offenders (who must be at least 24 years old with a 10-year age gap) can be rationally distinguished from tier two registration for section 288(a) offenders.

The Rule of In re N.S. is that a juvenile court lacks authority to commit a ward to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) when the most recent offense by date of commission is not listed in section 707, subdivision (b), under circumstances where the juvenile has been adjudicated for multiple offenses committed on different dates and only a non-most-recent offense qualifies under section 707, subdivision (b).

The Rule of Voice of San Diego is that an agency's compliance with the CPRA's duty to make records "promptly available" under Government Code section 7922.530(a) must be determined case-by-case considering the scope and burden imposed on the particular agency by the particular request, under circumstances where the CPRA does not impose a fixed timeframe for actual production of requested records.

The Rule of People v. Berch is that felony false imprisonment based on menace does not require a threat to inflict force that is greater than necessary to effectuate restraint on a person's liberty, under circumstances where the menace involves a threat to inflict injury upon another person.

The Rule of Lu v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot levy upon a third party's separate deposit accounts by claiming the account holder is the judgment debtor's spouse when the marriage is void ab initio due to bigamy, under circumstances where the affidavit of spousal relationship supporting the notice of levy is based on a bigamous marriage that was illegal and void from inception.

The Rule of The People v. Murray Rifat is that a petition to seal arrest records under Penal Code section 851.91 must be denied when there is a causal nexus between the arrest and a subsequent conviction, under circumstances where the defendant pleaded guilty to charges in a separate case filed as part of a plea agreement to dismiss the original charges and the conduct underlying both cases occurred during overlapping time periods.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as trespass with intent to interfere with business and conspiracy must be permitted to present evidence of his good faith mistake of law defense based on his belief that necessity doctrine justified his conduct, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where legal experts advised the defendant that his trespass was lawful under necessity principles.

The Rule of People v. Brinston is that compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2 must be granted when a defendant's severe physical incapacitation forecloses any realistic possibility of committing a violent crime, even where psychological propensity for violence may remain, under circumstances where the defendant's physical condition has materially deteriorated since prior risk assessments and renders him unable to complete basic activities of daily living.