California Legal Brief

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.

The Rule of In re Marriage of LaShelle and Nicholas Capos is that a judgment awarding child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly states the relief sought in supporting documents and the opposing party files a responsive pleading addressing the merits, under circumstances where boxes relating to child support on judicial council forms are not checked but the specific relief is nonetheless plainly articulated in accompanying declarations.

The Rule of Dummer v. City and County of San Francisco is that a public agency owning a reservoir has discretionary authority to evaluate and determine terms and conditions for a fishing program before submitting a water supply permit application, and is not subject to mandamus for immediate permit application submission, under circumstances where the agency has made the required water purity determination and is actively taking steps to comply with applicable permitting requirements including CEQA review.

The Rule of Harland v. City of West Hollywood is that a plaintiff cannot cure a premature filing violation of the Government Claims Act by voluntarily dismissing and refiling an identical lawsuit, even when the public entity later denies the claim, under circumstances where the plaintiff filed suit before the required 45-day waiting period elapsed and the original complaint was served before any corrective amended complaint.

The Rule of Alternative Family Services is that foster family agencies (FFAs) have a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by foster parents where the FFA knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of such abuse, under circumstances involving FFA negligence in screening and supervising foster parents who sexually abuse children.

The Rule of Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc. is that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require proof of concrete injury for standing in California state courts, and a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing, under circumstances where a federal statute provides statutory damages without requiring actual damages.

The Rule of Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority is that issue preclusion bars relitigation of statute of limitations arguments that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior CEQA action, even when those arguments are raised in a subsequent lawsuit based on allegedly new project components, under circumstances where the party failed to appeal the prior adverse ruling and the new allegations do not establish a genuinely different project under CEQA.

The Rule of Doss v. Tesla, Inc. is that yard hostlers who move 53-foot trailers containing auto parts shipped from out of state within factory grounds are "transportation workers" engaged in interstate commerce exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, under circumstances where their movement and positioning of trailers for unloading and receiving is a necessary step in completing the interstate journey of goods.

The Rule of People v. Bustillos is that Senate Bill 567's requirement that upper term sentences be based on stipulated or proven aggravating factors applies retroactively to resentencing proceedings on cases not final on appeal, under circumstances where the defendant violated probation and was resentenced after the law's effective date of January 1, 2022.

The Rule of People v. Hayes is that when police use coercive tactics including chemical gas, flash-bangs, and robotic devices to force a suspect to exit their residence, the arrest occurs inside the home and requires a valid warrant, under circumstances where the suspect submitted to police authority while still inside by complying with orders to come out.