For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
San Luis Obispo Local Agency v. City of Pismo Beach
Government Code Section 56383 held inapplicable to costs and fees accrued in post-administrative processes and without compliance with Section 66016. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/6 Mar. 5, 2021
U.S. v. Lucero
Defendant's Clean Water Act conviction reversed because the jury instructions failed to make clear the requirement that defendant knew the pollutant was discharged 'into water'. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Mar. 5, 2021
Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. County of Ventura
Penal Code Section 832.7, permitting disclosure of records relating to officer-involved shootings, applies retroactively since a request for records occurs after the law's effective date. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/6 Mar. 4, 2021
Rojas v. Federal Aviation Administration
Term 'intra-agency' in Freedom of Information Act Exemption 5 includes documents prepared by outside consultants hired by agency to assist in carrying out agency's functions. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Mar. 3, 2021
In re Hoze
Petitioner was not required to serve his sentences for in-prison offenses because grant of parole under Elderly Parole Program supersedes Penal Code Section 1170.1(c). 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/5 Mar. 1, 2021
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Bautista
District court erred in applying recidivist sentencing enhancement based on defendant's prior state conviction for transportation of marijuana after hemp was removed from federal drug schedule. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Mar. 1, 2021
O.G. v. Superior Court (People)
Senate Bill No. 1391 is a permissible amendment to Proposition 57 because it furthers Proposition 57's fundamental purposes. 		statutory_interpretation CASC Feb. 26, 2021
People v. Jackson
Penal Code Section 3051 excludes persons between ages of 18-25 sentenced to life without possibility of parole from youth parole hearings and there is a rational basis for that exclusion. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/1 Feb. 25, 2021
Modification: People v. Jaimes
Trial court erroneously defined 'association'--an element of the gang enhancement--in response to jury's request to define the term. 		statutory_interpretation 5DCA Feb. 25, 2021
People v. Barrios
Defendant could not be imprisoned for both robbery and for kidnapping to commit robbery because kidnapping had no objective but robbery. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/8 Feb. 24, 2021
Souliotes v. California Victim Compensation Board
'Schlup v. Delo' gateway finding of 'actual innocence' is not equivalent to finding that person is 'factually innocent,' under Penal Code Section 1485.55(a), thus requiring compensation. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/4 Feb. 23, 2021
People v. Valliant
Penal Code Section 1170.91(b) resentencing relief for military veterans suffering from PTSD or substance abuse is limited to persons sentenced prior to January 1, 2015. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/3 Feb. 19, 2021
Connell v. Lima Corporate
In light of statutory text, defendant is 'biomaterials supplier' of its hip stem product and therefore immune from liability under Biomaterials Access Assurance Act. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Feb. 18, 2021
People v. Burgess
Although instruction stated that jury must find defendant violated 'court-ordered' firearm restriction probation condition, Penal Code Section 29815 does not require probation condition be ordered by court. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/1 Feb. 16, 2021
In re D.C.
Juvenile court erred when it found human trafficking affirmative defense did not apply because trafficker did not directly coerce accused to commit specific offense. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/2 Feb. 16, 2021
Hernandez v. State Personnel Board
Plaintiff was 'a person similarly situated to a spouse' of his live-in girlfriend for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(9), which prohibits those convicted of domestic violence from carrying firearm. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/2 Feb. 12, 2021
People v. Acosta
Age is a rational basis for allowing youth offender parole hearings for juveniles-- but not young adults--sentenced to life without possibility of parole. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/3 Feb. 11, 2021
Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employee's Retirement Association
Petitioner was not 'retired' for purposes of County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 when petitioner submitted his application for retirement benefits. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/2 Feb. 9, 2021
Early v. Becerra
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 permitted attorney fee award to Attorney General for defending ballot challenge. 		statutory_interpretation 3DCA Feb. 9, 2021
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform v. Aragon
Health and Safety Code Section 1267.5(a)(3)(A) allows for operation of licensed skilled nursing facility by unlicensed management company. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/3 Feb. 3, 2021
Desire LLC v. Manna Textiles
Multiple statutory damages awards not authorized where one infringer was jointly and severally liable with all other infringers, but other infringers were not completely jointly and severally liable with one another. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Feb. 3, 2021
Amended Opinion: People v. Montelongo
Two statutes that criminalize the same conduct but impose different penalties are not unconstitutionally vague. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/7 Feb. 1, 2021
U.S. v. Hudson
18 U.S.C. Section 2252(b)(2)'s reference to state crimes 'relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor' is not unconstitutionally vague. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Feb. 1, 2021
Modification: People v. Jaimes
Trial court erroneously defined 'association'--an element of the gang enhancement--in response to jury's request to define the term. 		statutory_interpretation 5DCA Jan. 29, 2021
In re Palmer
To the extent petitioner's continued incarceration at some point became constitutionally excessive, that alone did not justify ending his parole under the current statutory scheme. 		statutory_interpretation CASC Jan. 29, 2021
People v. Jaimes
Trial court erroneously defined 'association'--an element of the gang enhancement--in response to jury's request to define the term. 		statutory_interpretation 5DCA Jan. 27, 2021
People v. Hernandez
Senate Bill No. 1437's amendment of the felony murder rule does not apply to a defendant when the decedent is a peace officer. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/7 Jan. 26, 2021
People v. Taylor
Penal Code Section 11362.1(a) partially decriminalizes possession of cannabis but does not amend laws governing the possession of cannabis within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 		statutory_interpretation 6DCA Jan. 26, 2021
People v. Moseley
Risk of recidivism provides rational basis for treating one strike offenders differently from other youthful offenders entitled to the benefit of Penal Code Section 3051. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/2 Jan. 22, 2021
People v. Carr
Trial court's determination that defendant has been restored to competency, and not health official's certification of competency, terminates defendant's commitment for purposes of calculating defendant's maximum commitment time. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/3 Jan. 21, 2021
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.