December 23, 2010

Summary of December 21, 2010 conference report for civil cases

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Tuesday, December 21, 2010. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted (not including grant-and-transfers), (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal, or (4) the Court has denied a Court of Appeal’s publication request.

Review Granted

In re Ethan C., S187587—Review Granted—December 21, 2010

In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the issues presented are (1) Whether criminal negligence is required to support dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (f), on the ground that a parent “caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect?” (2) What is the definition of the word “caused” in the context of dependency jurisdiction under the statute? Specifically, does it mean the sole cause or a contributing cause, and should the existence of an intervening, superseding cause be considered? (3) Does the statute require proof of a current or future risk of harm?

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, held in a published decision, In re Ethan C. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 992, that: (1) a showing of criminal negligence on the father’s part was not necessary to support adjudication of children as dependent on grounds that their father had caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the dependency adjudication on the grounds that the children risked harm from domestic violence; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the dependency adjudication on the grounds that the children risked harm resulting from their mother’s cognitive impairments. Justice Rothschild dissented, disagreeing with the majority that there was sufficient evidence to support the assertion of dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, S188128—Review Granted—December 21, 2010

This is an appeal by a regional transportation authority from an order dismissing its eminent domain complaint. The issues presented are: (1) whether the defendant that owned the property statutorily waived all claims and defenses other than a claim for greater compensation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.260, and (2) whether another defendant, which used the property for overflow employee parking, had any legal or equitable interest in the property.

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, held in an unpublished decision, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market v. Alameda Produce Market (Oct. 6, 2010, B212643) 2010 WL 3898210, that neither defendant had standing to challenge the taking of the property in question. The property’s owner had waived all claims and defenses other than a claim for greater compensation under section 1255.260. The other defendant, which used the property for parking for its business, had no legal or equitable interest in the property.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

Court of Appeal Publication Request Denied

None.

Leave a Reply