Skip to main content

Decisions in Criminal, Family, Juvenile, Property & Tort Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on July 29, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

People v. Wong, B212580, concerned a challenge to a defendant's conviction for multiple crimes, including embezzlement, while working as the Southern California Director of Community and Government Relations of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and other crimes while as a Commissioner of the Los Angeles World Airports.  In affirming the convictions, the court held that substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the embezzlement charges were timely and, that there was sufficient evidence to support his bribery conviction.  The court also held that sufficient evidence supports his conflict of interest conviction and, that defendant's conviction for perjury is affirmed as the offense was complete once he signed the 2003 Form 700 and filed it.

In re Skyler H., D056307, concerned a challenge to the trial court's findings in terminating petitioner's parental rights to her eleven-year-old daughter.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that the trial court has discretion to consider the totality of the information presented concerning the child's family circumstances to determine whether it meets the threshold required for ICWA notice ("the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child").  The court also held that the ICWA notice is not required unless the totality of the family's circumstances indicate there is a low but reasonably probability the child is an Indian child, and here, the case need not be remanded for ICWA notice because the family's specific but attenuated Indian heritage does not provide reason to know the child is an Indian child.  Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the parent did not show a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interests of the child, and in summarily denying the parent's petition for modification under section 388.  Lastly, the court held that there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply.

In re A. G., D053991, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's order placing a minor-defendant on six months' probation, in finding that she violated Vehicle Code sections 22349(a) and the curfew provisions codified in San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102.  In affirming in part, the court held that, here, the amended petition alleged that defendant violated San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102, not that she had violated San Diego Ordinance No. 0-18416.  Thus, the discrepancy between the ordinance and the codification, when coupled with the charge contained in the petition, violated defendant's due process rights, because defendant was charged with violating a statute that in fact did not permit a person of ordinary intelligence to know what conduct could be engaged in without violating its provisions.

Guo v. Sun, B215595, concerned a challenge to the trial court's entry of judgment nullifying the marriage on the ground that the husband was already married to another woman in Italy when he purportedly married in 2001, and denial of of the husband's claim that he was the wife's putative spouse, in the marital dissolution proceedings of the couple who wed in 2001 in Las Vegas after meeting in North Korea in 1997 or 1998.  In affirming, the court held that there was substantial evidence supporting the superior court's finding that the husband was not a putative spouse, and that, whether the wife in good faith believed in the validity of the marriage is irrelevant to the husband's claim for putative spouse status.

Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Dep't of Transp., B214906, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment against plaintiff, in plaintiff's suit alleging inverse condemnation and tort causes of action against a number of public entities and a railroad, claiming that defendants caused his property to flood when it rained.  In affirming the trial court's judgment, the court held that the trial court correctly concluded that the three-year statute applies in the inverse condemnation claim and, that the trial court was correct in finding that, even if statute of limitations did not apply, plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation in his action against the public entities.  Court also held that the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings to the public entities and, that the three-year statute of limitations bars plaintiff's causes of action for nuisance and trespass against the railroad.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard