Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, B216702, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment rejecting plaintiffs' challenge on the merits, in a suit brought by a county taxpayer's association and others challenging certain acts of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. In affirming, the court held that the Conservancy is authorized and directed by law to do any and all things necessary to carry out its statutorily mandated purposes, including grant in funds to be used for the preservation and protection of recreational, educational and environmental resources within its territory. Further, its membership in the Conservation Authority, the joint powers entity that is the recipient of its funding grant, does not render the grant in excess of its power to award.
Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp., B221470, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer in entering a judgment of dismissal, in plaintiffs' action for quiet title and related claims seeking to set aside a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and subsequent eviction. In affirming, the court held that, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim that the demurrer was erroneously sustained because the foreclosure sale was void and that the stipulated judgment in the summary unlawful detainer proceedings did not have preclusive effect on the issue of lawful title to the property, the validity of title was conclusively resolved in the unlawful detainer action in this case.
Estate of Cairns, A125736, concerned a challenge to the the trial court's interpretation of a provision known as the "five-or-five" provision, for annual distribution of principal to a life beneficiary, in finding that the provision authorized the distribution to include an interest in real property in addition to money, and denial of the remainder beneficiary's motion for an evidentiary hearing, in trustees' probate petition proceeding. In affirming, the court held that the trial court's interpretation of the "five-or-five" provision was consistent with the testator's intent and no evidentiary hearing was required.