California Legal Brief

AI-Generated Practitioner Briefs of California Appellate Opinions

constitutional law

14 opinions tagged “constitutional law”

In re Kowalczyk 4/30/26 SC

The Rule of In re Kowalczyk is that trial courts may only deny bail in noncapital cases for offenses specified in California Constitution article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and when setting monetary bail, must generally set it in an amount that is reasonably attainable for the defendant based on an individualized assessment of the totality of circumstances, under circumstances where pretrial detention is not warranted under section 12 subdivisions (b) or (c).

P. v. Emrick 4/24/26 CA1/3

The Rule of People v. Emrick is that probation conditions cannot delegate excessive judicial authority to probation departments to determine the nature of sanctions and cannot deny custody credits for time in residential treatment without a knowing and voluntary waiver, under circumstances where conditions give probation officers open-ended discretion to jail probationers based on unilateral determinations of treatment non-completion.

Jessica M. v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation 4/23/26 CA2/7

The Rule of Jessica M. is that section 3051's youth offender parole provisions do not unconstitutionally amend an initiative statute when the initiative made only technical restatements and clarifications to existing sentencing provisions without substantive changes, under circumstances where the challenged statutory provisions were not integral to accomplishing the electorate's goals in enacting the initiative.

The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment etc. 4/15/26 CA4/3

The Rule of The Retail Property Trust is that Revenue and Taxation Code section 170(a)(1) requires physical damage to property (whether direct or indirect) to qualify for reassessment relief, under circumstances where a property owner seeks disaster relief based on diminished property value from access restrictions alone without any physical harm to property.

Tulare Medical Center Property etc. v. Valdivia 4/7/26 CA5

The Rule of Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association is that CC&Rs adopted by public entities prohibiting abortion clinics are unenforceable as violations of fundamental public policy and Civil Code section 531, under circumstances where a public entity creates land use restrictions that interfere with constitutional reproductive rights without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest.

P. v. Newt 3/30/26 CA1/1

The Rule of People v. Newt is that "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under Penal Code section 32310(a) requires evidence beyond mere possession, specifically evidence as to the provenance of the magazine (such as that defendant bought or received it after January 1, 2000, from someone who manufactured, imported, kept for sale, offered for sale, gave, or lent it), under circumstances where the prosecution seeks a felony conviction for "receiving" rather than a misdemeanor conviction for "possessing" under subdivision (c).

In re E.J. 3/26/26 CA4/2

The Rule of In re E.J. is that Penal Code section 29820, which prohibits minors adjudged wards of the juvenile court for specified offenses from possessing firearms until age 30, is facially constitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, under circumstances where the prohibition is based on a prior juvenile adjudication for qualifying criminal conduct.

In re Bergstrom 3/26/26 CA5

The Rule of In re Bergstrom is that Penal Code section 292 validly implements California Constitution article I, section 12's bail exception by defining specified sexual offenses against children as involving acts of violence and great bodily harm, under circumstances where the constitutional provision does not itself define these terms and the Legislature has authority to implement this constitutional bail exception.

Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland 3/9/26 CA1/4

The Rule of Alameda County Taxpayers' Association v. City of Oakland is that specific references in an initiative measure identifying a private corporation as currently filling a role that involves functions and duties violate article II, section 12, but such references can be severed without invalidating the remainder of the measure, under circumstances where the references are grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable and the measure contains a severability clause.

Moramarco et al. v. Nowakoski 3/5/26 CA4/2

The Rule of Moramarco v. Nowakoski is that a trustee's inability to pay is not a mitigating factor that can reduce a Probate Code section 859 civil penalty for bad faith wrongful taking of trust property, under circumstances where a trustee attorney misappropriated trust funds and the statute provides mandatory double damages.

P. v. Flores 2/11/26 CA1/2

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara 1/30/26 CA2/6

The Rule of Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara is that a municipal ordinance imposing a tax on video services applies to internet video streaming services when the ordinance uses "channel" in its ordinary meaning as a "programming source" rather than in the technical sense of a "transmission path," under circumstances where the ordinance was approved by voters to modernize and technologically neutralize video service taxation.

Dept. of Water Resources Cases 3/26/26 CA3

The Rule of Department of Water Resources Cases is that a public entity with eminent domain authority may conduct precondemnation entry and testing activities under Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.010 et seq.

Tulare Medical Center Property etc. Valdivia 5/6/26 CA5

The Rule of Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Leopoldo Valdivia is that a public entity's adoption and recording of CC&Rs containing a prohibition on abortion clinics violates the California Constitution and is unenforceable as against fundamental public policy, under circumstances where the public entity's creation of the prohibition constitutes government action that interferes with the fundamental right of procreative choice without a compelling justification.