October, 2003
browse other months

TORTS
Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation
S118561 (A093424) 110 Cal.App.4th 826
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a premises owner had no liability to an independent contractor's employee for a dangerous condition a contractor had created on the property unless the dangerous condition was within the owner's control and the owner exercised this control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the employee's injury? 10/29/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Robertson
S118034 (A095055) 109 Cal.App.4th 1740
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a trial court err in instructing that grossly negligent discharge of a firearm may serve as a predicate offense for felony murder? If so, was the error prejudicial? 10/1/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Chacon
S117879 (F038393) 109 Cal.App.4th 1537
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Does Proposition 21 violate the California Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by mandating prosecutorial consent before a trial court can order a juvenile disposition on a discretionary direct file? 10/1/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Thomas
S118052 (F037501) 103 Cal.App.4th 663
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Does a criminal trial court have discretion to order a juvenile disposition following a Prop 21 "discretionary direct file," without first seeking prosecutorial consent? 10/1/03

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University
S117816 (H023158) 109 Cal.App.4th 1179
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a state university could not be compelled, as part of its environmental impact analysis, to pay for mitigation of traffic and fire safety impacts on a local community resulting from development of a new campus on a retired military base? 10/1/03

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations
S118450 (B159333) 110 Cal.App.4th 636
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a construction project financed in part with city funds was subject to the state’s prevailing wage law, that the city’s status as a charter city did not exempt the project from the wage law, and that the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) was not barred by estoppel or laches from making a coverage determination in this case? 10/1/03

REAL ESTATE
Barratt American, Incorporated v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
S117590 (E032578) 109 Cal.App.4th 709
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a residential real estate developer’s claims against a city for allegedly overcharging for building permits and plan reviews were either time-barred or not sustainable under Government Code §66016, which regulates such fees and service charges? 10/1/03

REAL ESTATE
Kirkeby v. Superior Court (Fascenelli)
S117640 (G031262) 03 C.D.O.S. 5330
Petition for review after denial of petition for writ of mandate. Question presented: Does a complaint that pleads a cause of action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance affect title to or the right to possession of specific real property, so as to support a lis pendens? 10/1/03