Here are a few cases I did not have time to write up but seemed either important or irritating enough to mention:
- Tax initiative held invalid because too narrow: On the heels of the Supreme Court’s Legislature v. Weber holding that anti-tax initiative was too sweeping to be valid, the Court of Appeal held in Loeber v. Lakeside Joint School District (Jun. 24, 2024 No. H050688) [cert. for pub.] that a senior-citizen school-district tax exemption was too narrow to be valid.
- No meet and confer, get sanctioned: A party and her attorney in Gordon v. Chandler (Estate of Ambrose-Gordon) (Jun. 24, 2024 No. A169189) [nonpub. opn.] were sanctioned almost $10,000 for failing to meaningfully meet and confer before filing a discovery motion. Affirmed. (Advice: Your meet and confer letters need to persuade the court that you hate having to bring the motion as much as the court hates having to read it.)
- A minute order is not a statement of decision: The defendants in O'Neill v. Cara (Jul. 10, 2024 No. G062076) [nonpub. opn.] tried to impeach the judgment with something the judge said in a minute order. Nope, doesn’t work—a minute order isn’t a statement of decision.
- The disposition in an appellate opinion means what it says: Here’s a nerdy one. Petitioner won a coram nobis petition vacating a disqualified judge’s orders, but in Cricket Commc'ns v. Superior Court (Jun. 27, 2024 No. H051568) [nonpub. opn.], the court explained the trial court must follow the language in the disposition of the opinion, and that didn’t reference the jury verdict, which stands.
(Artwork by Randall Holbrook, RNDL.DESIGN.)