CA Pub. Decisions

A decision regarding fraud, statutory violations, and breach of contract.

Defendant was entitled to be released from custody on his own recognizance, subject to reasonable conditions, when his preliminary examination was continued for good cause beyond the 10-day period specified in Penal Code Sec. 859b. Defendant was not entitled to have information set aside after trial court wrongly failed to grant defendant OR release pending his preliminary examination unless error reasonably might have affected the outcome of the preliminary examination.

Defendant was entitled to be released from custody on his own recognizance, subject to reasonable conditions, when his preliminary examination was continued for good cause beyond the 10-day period specified in Penal Code Sec. 859b. Defendant was not entitled to have information set aside after trial court wrongly failed to grant defendant OR release pending his preliminary examination unless error reasonably might have affected the outcome of the preliminary examination.

Defendant was entitled to be released from custody on his own recognizance, subject to reasonable conditions, when his preliminary examination was continued for good cause beyond the 10-day period specified in Penal Code Sec. 859b. Defendant was not entitled to have information set aside after trial court wrongly failed to grant defendant OR release pending his preliminary examination unless error reasonably might have affected the outcome of the preliminary examination.

A decision regarding petition seeking reinstatement of the child's placement in their home or, alternatively, liberal visitation.

A modification decision.

A decision regarding battery with serious bodily injury, abuse of an elder, and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; the latter count also alleged personal infliction of great bodily injury.

The principal issue presented in this case is whether an intentional tortfeasor is entitled to a reduction or apportionment of noneconomic damages under Proposition 51 (otherwise known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 and codified in Civil Code sections 1431 to 1431.5).

Charles Gelfo sued his former employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, a division of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed), alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Plaintiff was laid-off as part of a reduction in force while suffering from a workplace injury. Lockheed later offered him a different position, but rescinded its offer after determining medical restrictions imposed as a result of his back injury rendered him unable to perform the essential functions of the new position, and no reasonable accommodation was possible.

Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Association (â€

A decision regarding imposing personal liability on a corporate agent for unpaid employee wages and expenses.

A decision regarding the defendant's motion to relieve his retained attorney is reversed and the matter is remanded to allow defendant to discharge his retained attorney.

A decision regarding the nature of the activity asserted in the action was the manufacturer's alleged production of a defective product.

A decision regarding kidnapping and sexual offenses under aggravated circumstances. Sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion