CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Appellant appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to his daughter and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. Appellant challenges the evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that Briana likely would be adopted and rejection of this evidence and argument that the case came with the exceptions to termination described by sections 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), and no termination if there would be substantial interference with a sibling relationship. Court affirm the order.
|
|
In this juvenile dependency matter, mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and ordering her sons placed for adoption. Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the boys are adoptable. Court disagree and affirm.
|
|
In this juvenile dependency matter, mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and ordering her sons placed for adoption. Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the boys are adoptable. Court disagree and affirm.
|
|
Parents petition for writ relief from the juvenile court's order terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan for their son. The petition alleged that a two-month old infant suffered severe physical abuse by a parent. Each parent also contends that the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) failed to provide them with reasonable family reunification services and that the juvenile court erred in reducing visitation. The petition for extraordinary writ was denied.
|
|
Parents petition for writ relief from the juvenile court's order terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan for their son. The petition alleged that a two-month old infant suffered severe physical abuse by a parent. Each parent also contends that the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) failed to provide them with reasonable family reunification services and that the juvenile court erred in reducing visitation. The petition for extraordinary writ was denied.
|
|
Defendant appeals from a court order denying its petition to compel arbitration of claims for disability discrimination and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, asserted by its former employee. Defendant contends the trial court erred in concluding that the arbitration agreement between the parties is unconscionably one-sided and thus unenforceable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz). Although the court considers the question to be exceptionally close, the ourt conclude that appellant is correct and shall reverse the decision.
|
|
The victim a 14 year old female was molested by her 18 year old half brother. During a period of four months the defendant made inappropriate sexual comments, had digitally penetrated her, and had sexual intercourse on at least three seperate occasions.Counsel appointed for defendant has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Court have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm the decision.
|
|
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to evading a peace officer, and possession of forged checks respectively. The trial court subsequently imposed a state prison term of three years and eight months, consisting of the upper term on Count II and a consecutive term on Count III. In this appeal defendant claims that the trial court erred by imposing upper and consecutive terms based upon aggravating factors that defendant neither admitted as part of his plea nor were found by the jury, in violation of his rights to a jury trial and finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court conclude that the imposition of upper and consecutive terms did not violate Blakely, and therefore affirm the judgment.
|
|
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to evading a peace officer, and possession of forged checks respectively. The trial court subsequently imposed a state prison term of three years and eight months, consisting of the upper term on Count II and a consecutive term on Count III. In this appeal defendant claims that the trial court erred by imposing upper and consecutive terms based upon aggravating factors that defendant neither admitted as part of his plea nor were found by the jury, in violation of his rights to a jury trial and finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court conclude that the imposition of upper and consecutive terms did not violate Blakely, and therefore affirm the judgment.
|
|
Defendant appeals from his conviction for second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior acts of drunk driving; (2) the jury instructions improperly blurred the distinction between vehicular manslaughter and gross vehicular manslaughter; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning a Florida drunk driving conviction and defendant's participation in a DWI school in Florida; (4) the admission of defendant's refusal to take a field sobriety test violated his Fifth Amendment rights; and (5) counsel was ineffective. Court affirmed the decision.
|
|
In litigation between competitors in the outdoor advertising industry, the trial court correctly sustained a demurrer to causes of action in a cross-complaint for breach of contract, fraud and negligent, misrepresentation, and properly dismissed a fourth cause of action for declaratory relief relating to billboards in Oceanside and Riverside. The trial court also properly sustained a demurrer to a fifth cause of action for unfair competition involving billboards in other locations that allegedly violate various state and local ordinances. The trial court awarded attorney fees of $464,720.75 to the prevailing party under the attorney fee clause of a contract between the parties, concluding that the multiple causes of action were inextricably intertwined and fees could not be apportioned between contract and non-contract claims. Court affirmed the court's attorney fee order.
|
|
In litigation between competitors in the outdoor advertising industry, the trial court correctly sustained a demurrer to causes of action in a cross-complaint for breach of contract, fraud and negligent, misrepresentation, and properly dismissed a fourth cause of action for declaratory relief relating to billboards in Oceanside and Riverside. The trial court also properly sustained a demurrer to a fifth cause of action for unfair competition involving billboards in other locations that allegedly violate various state and local ordinances. The trial court awarded attorney fees of $464,720.75 to the prevailing party under the attorney fee clause of a contract between the parties, concluding that the multiple causes of action were inextricably intertwined and fees could not be apportioned between contract and non-contract claims. Court affirmed the court's attorney fee order.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
