September, 2003
browse other months

BUSINESS LAW
Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cox)
S117726 (E032377) 109 Cal.App.4th 1385
Petition for review after denial of petition for writ of mandate. Question presented: Can a manufacturer who sells goods in California be held subject to provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with respect to particular products that were purchased out of state? 9/10/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Carson
S117568 (B153072) 109 Cal.App.4th 978
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Did a defendant’s pretrial receipt of investigative materials to which he was not entitled justify the termination of his right to self-representation? 9/10/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Hernandez
S117651 (F038004) 109 Cal.App.4th 1338
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a trial court abuse its discretion in denying a request to bifurcate trial on a criminal street gang enhancement from trial on underlying offenses? If so, was the error harmless? 9/10/03

CIVIL LITIGATION AND PROCEDURE
Kids Against Pollution v. California Dental Association
S117156 (A098396) 108 Cal.App.4th 1003
Petition on review after reversal of order. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a cause of action alleging both constitutionally protected and unprotected activities may be subject to motion to strike under anti-SLAPP statute where that claim is based in part on activity in furtherance of defendant’s right of free speech? Can the statute properly be applied to protect commercial speech? 9/17/03

TORTS
Zamos v. Stround
S118032 (B160484) 110 Cal.App.4th 60
Petition on review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of judgment. Question presented: Can an attorney properly be found liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute suit after discovering facts showing that his client has no valid claim? 9/17/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Briceno
S117641 (G029595) 109 Cal.App.4th 1330
Petition on review after reversal in judgment. Question presented: Do unenumerated felonies with a gang enhancement under Penal Code §186.22(b)(1) constitute serious felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law? 9/17/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Martinez
S118180 (F039200) 110 Cal.App.4th 353
Petition on review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a sentencing court have statutory authority to order a convicted methamphetamine lab operator to pay a restitution fine to the government agency that undertook the environmental clean-up of the lab site? 9/24/03

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
People v. Yartz
S117964 (C035317) 109 Cal.App.4th 1660
Petition for review after reversal of order. Question presented: Was a 1978 child molestation conviction that was based on a no contest plea entered in accordance with Penal Code §1016(3), as then enacted, a proper evidentiary basis in a subsequent Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) proceeding to prove the defendant had been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims? 9/24/03

INSURANCE
Boghos v. Lloyd's of London
S117735 (H024481) 109 Cal.App.4th 1728
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a "service of suit" clause in a disability insurance policy, under which the insurer consented to court jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over failure to pay claims, apply to prevent application of a contractual arbitration provision, where the insured sued the insurer following the insurer’s decision to discontinue paying disability payments after previously commencing payment? 9/24/03

INSURANCE
Boghos v. Lloyd's of London
S117735 (H024481) 109 Cal.App.4th 1728
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a "service of suit" clause in a disability insurance policy, under which the insurer consented to court jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over failure to pay claims, apply to prevent application of a contractual arbitration provision, where the insured sued the insurer following the insurer’s decision to discontinue paying disability payments after previously commencing payment? 9/24/03