(California Court of Appeal) - Denied District Attorney’s writ of mandate to declare Senate Bill No. 1391 unconstitutional. Juvenile offender, T.D., shot and killed someone when he was 14. The DA filed charges against T.D. directly as an adult. While the case was pending, Proposition 57 was passed to eliminate the DA’s ability to charge minors 14 or younger as adults. Later, SB No. 1391 was passed that prohibited transfers of 14 -15 year-olds to criminal court. The Appeals court found that SB No. 1391 was not unconstitutional and that it was consistent with the intent of Prop 57.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit an attorney it had previously denied admission pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy, the District Court's denial is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion, as there are a litany of reasons for denying the attorney's pro hac vice status.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit contending that the First Amendment required the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to release newly filed complaints to the press at the moment of receipt by her office -- not after processing. Ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied the federal government's petition for mandamus to stop a lawsuit alleging that the government is ignoring the dangers of climate change. This lawsuit was brought by a number of children and young adults who accuse federal officials of violating their due process rights by failing to take action to address climate change. Having previously denied the government's first mandamus petition, the panel concluded that no new circumstances justify this second mandamus petition and the case is currently set for trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate is denied. Remanded to consider restitution. Los Angeles County filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas for a natural gas leak that continued for months and caused damage to residents. The criminal charges were resolved by a plea agreement, where a no contest plea was entered to the charge of failure to immediately report gas leak. Plaintiffs sought to set aside plea agreement and seek restitution under the California Constitution. The appeals court held that victims do not have a right to appeal a criminal case judgment, but they do have a right to restitution. However, restitution is only available for crimes where there is an actual conviction.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in a case where a group of pharmaceutical companies had been sued by the District Attorney under California's Unfair Competition Law for allegations that they had engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market, but the suit was based on conduct outside of the county where the DA served and allowing them to proceed with the suit without written consent would permit the DA to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind other DAs, precluding them from pursuing their own relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an indigent defendant facing misdemeanor charges was constitutionally entitled to the help of appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal. She had successfully moved to suppress evidence related to driving under the influence. The California Supreme Court agreed with her that she had the right to appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal of the suppression order.

(Supreme Court of California) - Vacate order and remand. The trial court denied Plaintiff access to ballistics evidence used at his trial to file a habeas corpus petition. The trial court believed that Penal Code section 1054.9 prohibited such a release of evidence. The Supreme court disagreed stating that section 1054.9 referred to physical evidence held by the prosecutor, not evidence held by the court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.

By Ezra David Romero

As the state slowly begins to reopen there’s a lot of mixed messages about what it means for Californians because counties, cities and the state are opening at different paces. 

CapRadio recently asked our audience about what concerns them about the reopening beginning to take place. We heard everything from California is opening prematurely so officials should take more caution to relief that some people can go back to work. 

There was an air of anxiety in their responses like this: “I think it is too early, and people just need to calm down. We need more testing before we start making plans to reopen so we can know what we are dealing with.”

Our listeners noted that they’re concerned because there are new transmissions and deaths from COVID-19 almost daily in the state. As of May 6 there were 60,614 cases in the state and 2,504 deaths. 

But how do we move forward? CapRadio’s region encompasses many counties and two states all with different rules. Imagine living in one county with a strict stay-at-home order and working in another where restrictions are limited. That’s the reality for many of our listeners and it’s producing anxiety for some.

We reached out to experts to find out how to meander through all the noise, news and changing guidelines.

What we looked into:

• How to find meaning within this crisis and how to fight off anxiety
• Precautions moving forward
• How do vulnerable communities move ahead? 
• Is it safe to go out into the natural world?

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court decision to put Senate candidate Michelle Ferrigno Warren's name on the June 30 Democratic primary ballot, siding with the Secretary of State's Office.

His case is so convincing, so true, that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are guilty.

Once you surrender your life to Christ, from that point on, when God looks at you, he sees Jesus—not your past failures or even your accomplishments. He sees Jesus in you. God’s grace is just that amazing.

It seems too incredible to believe, doesn’t it? This is why the gospel means “good news.” Because of our union life with Jesus, we are no longer sinners. Instead, we are made free from the penalty and power of sin.

We just need to learn how to walk in the freedom that has already been won by Jesus.

Picture in your mind a courtroom.

You are on trial for treason against God.

You are sitting on the left side of the room, alone. The prosecuting attorney is seated on the right. In front is a Judge whose righteousness is so blinding you can’t see his face; all you can see is his glory.

The well-dressed prosecuting attorney approaches the Judge. He turns on a 20-foot, high-definition television. For hours he assaults you with everything you’ve ever done. His case is so convincing, so true, that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are guilty. You are guilty of being a sinner.

As you stand to receive your well-deserved sentence of eternity in hell from the Judge, the creaking sound of the door opening echoes through the courtroom. It’s your defense attorney. He’s wearing a ripped-up, blood-soaked robe. You notice he has holes in his wrists. As your attorney approaches the bench, a hush descends over the crowded courtroom, and under the silence you hear, “He’s never lost a case.”

The prosecuting attorney objects to your defense attorney representing you. He tells the Judge that he wants you to represent yourself.

The Judge speaks. ...

Continue reading...

A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the convictions of two political insiders involved in the “Bridgegate” scandal that ultimately derailed the 2016 presidential bid of then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The justices found evidence of deception, corruption and abuse of power in the scheme, but said “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

Colorado lawmakers don't have to meet for 120 consecutive days during a declared public health emergency, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a narrow decision Wednesday.

Some activities must continue even as cities, counties and states effectively shut down to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Obviously our hospitals, doctors’ offices and emergency responder systems must remain open. Grocery stores are essential and so are pharmacies.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Wednesday forcefully pushed back on new federal campus sexual assault rules which would bolster the rights of the accused, promising to fight the U.S. Department of Education in court.

A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the convictions of two political insiders involved in the “Bridgegate” scandal that ultimately derailed the 2016 presidential bid of then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The justices found evidence of deception, corruption and abuse of power in the scheme, but said “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

Altitude TV will move forward in its antitrust lawsuit against Comcast after a Colorado federal court ruled in favor this week of allowing the case to continue during the pandemic.

Brian Courtney Wilson and Travis Greene takes the hot seat!

The rapper has the best sneaker game in the world.

Courtney Adeleye talks about her biggest inspiration.

Courtney Adeleye talks about her biggest inspiration.