Newsinfo

  Defendants, an owner and a driver, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the owner and the driver after their bus collided with her car. Upon a jury trial, the superior court entered a judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed. The court affirmed the judgment. It determined that (1) since the record failed to disclose at whose request defendants' appealed jury instruction was given, Corporate business attorney was presumed that the instruction was given at defendants' request, (2) any prejudicial error in asking the driver about his driving prior to accident was cured by answers favorable to defendants, (3) the superior court struck from the record and told the jury to disregard a witness's testimony that the driver was driving recklessly, and (4) there was no prejudicial error in plaintiff's examinations o...

  Plaintiff attorney sued defendants (attorney and firm) for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants cross-complained for indemnity, breach of fiduciary duty, comparative fault and breach of contract. Plaintiff insurer intervened and sued plaintiff attorney in subrogation. Each party successfully moved for summary judgment. Both parties appealed from the judgments entered in the City and County of San Francisco Superior Court, California. Two brothers hired plaintiff to represent them in a suit against a car manufacturer for injuries received when their pick-up truck rolled over and burst into flames. Plaintiff brought in defendants and another attorney to work on the case. The other attorney advanced the costs of the suit. On the night before closing arguments, the clients told counsel they wanted to settle, but plaintiff never discussed settlement with the manufacturer. The manufacturer won the case. The clients sued the other attorney and defendants for malpractice. San Diego cla...

  Plaintiff patient challenged the order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which reduced the jury's award of damages in his suit alleging medical malpractice by defendant health care provider when its employees initially diagnosed plaintiff's heart attack as muscle spasm. Plaintiff patient suffered chest pains and was treated by employees of defendant health care provider for muscle spasms. A later examination showed that plaintiff had suffered a heart attack. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging malpractice. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and entered special findings on the amount of damages. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3333.1, 3333.2, the trial court reduced the award of damages for noneconomic losses from by half and reduced the award for lost wages to the time of trial by collateral source disability payments. The trial Due diligence acquisition checklist further ordered that defendant pay future medical expenses not covered by medical insura...

  In a proceeding in mandamus, appellant liquor license sought to overturn the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which held that respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (department) properly revoked the licensee's right to sell liquor and which refused to issue a writ of mandate on behalf of the licensee. Previously, the department affirmed the decision of a hearing officer. The licensee owned an establishment that was permitted to sell liquor, but the licensee did not visit the establishment often. The licensee's bartender and the bartender's wife openly sold heroin on the licensee's premises. The Discrimination defense lawyer for employers officer revoked the licensee's right to sell liquor, the department affirmed the hearing officer's decision, and the lower court affirmed the decision of the department. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the licensee had violated Cal. Bus. & ...

  Appellants, a town and others, sought review of a decision by the Santa Clara County Superior Court (California), which denied their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the California Board of Equalization and others, to deny an application for a license to sell distilled liquor filed by the real party in interest, a restaurant in the town. Appellees conceded that the town's zoning ordinance was valid but argued that Cal. Const. art. XX, § 22 terminated the "local option" and precluded counties and cities from exercising any control over the issuance and granting of liquor licenses. The restaurant argued that the license was not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use because the restaurant already had the right to sell wine and beer and the addition of the right to sell distilled spirits did not change the general use of the premises. The Employment lawyer San Bernardino held that: (1) the "local option" was terminated; (2) but, u...