CA Pub. Decisions

Permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating certain defamatory statements about plaintiff was overly broad where it applied not just to defendant but to "her agents, all persons acting on her behalf or purporting to act on her behalf and all other persons in active concert and participation with her" even though there was no evidence that anyone other than defendant personally defamed plaintiff, and the injunction did not provide for defendant to be able to present her grievances to government officials and barred defendant from initiating any type of contact with a known employee of plaintiff anywhere at any time regarding any subject. Defendant's right to free speech would not be infringed by a properly limited injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating statements about plaintiff that were determined at trial to be defamatory.

Vehicle Code Sec. 23612's implied consent law, which deems motorists who have been lawfully arrested for driving while under the influence to have consented to chemical testing, does not require proof of actual driving immediately prior to lawful arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol or a drug. Revocation or suspension of a license under Sec. 13353 and related statutes for refusal to submit to chemical testing under implied consent law does not require proof that the person actually was driving immediately prior to the arrest.

Trial court's imposition on defendant of $2,600 restitution fine not mentioned by prosecutor when he recited parties' plea agreement did not violate plea agreement where court, before taking defendant's plea, had accurately advised him he would "have to pay a restitution fund fine of a minimum of $200, a maximum of $10,000" and ascertained that prosecution had not made "any other promises" beyond that he would be sentenced to 13 years in prison.

When worker suffers an industrial injury that results in permanent disability, Fuentes apportionment formula which calculates percentage of disability attributable to new injury by subtracting old rating from new rating, then consulting table for award due the difference must be applied to apportion compensation owed between current level of permanent disability and previous industrial injury or nonindustrial disabilities.

Fourth Amendment does not preclude the collection of DNA samples from a juvenile who is adjudicated under Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 602 for committing a felony.

Disqualification of publicly funded, nonprofit law office from representing child in dependency court on ground that it had previously represented her mother in a separate proceeding was error where child's attorney was not personally and directly involved in representing mother and there was no divulgence of any confidential or privileged communication.

Action by dealer of mobilehomes against other mobilehome dealers, as well as a number of mobilehome park managers and owners, in which plaintiff alleged it was precluded from selling mobilehomes as a result of a kickback scheme, did not "arise[] out of the provisions" of the Mobilehome Residency Law for purposes of the law's fee shifting provisions.

In prosecution for theft from an elder, exclusion of victim's videotaped statements to police in their entirety was an abuse of discretion where portions of the statements were admissible for nonhearsay purposes or under hearsay exceptions, and exclusion was based solely on erroneous conclusion that statements constituted testimonial hearsay in their entirety and were inadmissible under Confrontation Clause. Victim's statements during police interview, which did not focus on establishing facts of a past crime but on evaluating victim's circumstances and condition, and which did not include accusations of wrongdoing by defendant, were not testimonial in nature. Even if interview was testimonial, portions offered solely to show victim's mental state were not made excludable by Confrontation Clause. Where police re interviewed victim for the primary purpose of trial preparation, such interview was testimonial, but portions not offered for truth of the matters asserted were not made inadmissible by Confrontation Clause. Portion of videotape depicting the condition of victim's residence was not testimonial. Trial court erred in precluding the testimony of expert on the ground that her opinions were based in part on the testimonial interviews of victim. Trial court erred in excluding testimony of prosecution's mental health expert on ground that it was based on testimonial hearsay. Constitutional ban on admission of testimonial hearsay does not mandate exception to rule that expert may rely upon hearsay or other inadmissible evidence in forming opinion.

Private attorney general statute does not authorize an award of fees to state attorney general for action brought in his official capacity against local entity.

Private attorney general statute does not authorize an award of fees to state attorney general for action brought in his official capacity against local entity.

Private attorney general statute does not authorize an award of fees to state attorney general for action brought in his official capacity against local entity.

State Medicaid plan requires Department of Health Services to conduct annual reviews of reimbursement rates. Failure to conduct mandatory annual reviews of reimbursement rates may be remedied by writ of mandate requiring that such reviews be conducted in the future, and that DHS conduct reviews for past years and make appropriate adjustments, but court may not, in first instance, order specific adjustments in rates.

A modification decision.

Trial court erred in finding that university "satisfactorily addressed" a coach's internal administrative complaint solely on basis that it addressed complaint in timely manner. Coach's failure to seek review of university's adverse decision before pursuing an action for damages had the effect of establishing propriety of university's action.