California Case Law
Thirty-two years ago, a woman says in a new lawsuit, a Sacramento doctor artificially inseminated her with his own sperm and without her knowledge. In Grinnell v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the woman says she didn't know it happened until last year. In the meantime, she says, the doctor had been performing gynecological exams on their child. The complaint does not identify the doctor by name, but his identity is certain. The plaintiffs confirmed it by genetic testing.
While most butter knives may barely be able to qualify as knives, the California Supreme Court has just heard arguments on whether a butter knife should be considered a deadly weapon. The In Re: B.M. case may finally, definitively answer whether a butter knife, if poorly wielded by an angry teenage girl against her own sister, can be considered a "deadly weapon." On appeal, it was held that the non-sharp butter knife, despite being used ineffectively, nevertheless qualified as deadly.
A recent employment discrimination lawsuit filed against Cal Fire alleges that a gay male firefighter was told to stop flaunting his sexuality, was shunned, and even told his "kind" were not welcome. While these allegations may seem rather wild, the case is also filed against Division Chief John Paul Melendrez, who has a reputation for being "psychotic," "tyrannical," and "yelling for effect.
Trial court judgment dismissing the criminal case against defendant is affirmed where: 1) a search warrant failed the test of time as the trial court reasonably found that the affidavit information was stale after an 82 day delay between the date the alleged criminal activity occurred and the issuance of the warrant; and 2) the court properly determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply as the officer's reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable.
In a case against an automobile insurance company, the Court of Appeal's judgment is affirmed where, although the made-whole rule applies in the med-pay insurance context and the insured must be made whole as to all damages proximately caused by the injury, liability for attorney's fees is not included under the made-whole rule. Instead, a pro rata apportionment rule for attorney fees better allocates responsibility between the insured and the insurer.
In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Newman Trust for breach of fiduciary duty based on fraud, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed as the Code of Civ. Proc. section 366.2 period of limitations is applicable to fraud claims based on statements of the decedent on behalf of a trust of which he was trustor and trustee, even though the action is against the successor trustee. Read 1680 Prop. Trust v. Newman Trust, No. B207613 [HTML] Read 1680 Prop. Trust v.
More Recent News
Greedy AssociatesCalifornia Sets the Bar Even Higher
Greedy AssociatesLawyer Suspended for Lying About Taking Two CLE Courses Simultaneously
Greedy AssociatesBilling Rates Surge Past $2k in the World of High-Stakes Litigation