LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
• City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez

CIVIL RIGHTS, INJURY AND TORT LAW
• Yount v. City of Sacramento

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, No. S145571
An appointment of a receiver and a decision by the plaintiff to demolish the defendant's house and sell the property as authorized under sections 17980.6 and 17980.7 is affirmed where: 1) the defendant was statutorily entitled to notice that failure to correct the substandard condition of his property might result in the appointment of a receiver and the plaintiff duly afforded that notice; 2) there was no violation of due process since the defendant had been on notice for years regarding the uninhabitable condition of his property and the various code violations and had been given ample opportunity for a hearing and to correct the violations; 3) the court adopts a standard of review for orders authorizing the receiver to contract for demolition requiring the court’s sound discretion exercised in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances and in the interest of fairness, justice and the rights of the respective parties; and 4) the plaintiff did not abuse its discretion when it chose to demolish the house. Read more...   

CIVIL RIGHTS, INJURY AND TORT LAW
Yount v. City of Sacramento, No. S139762
The Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court's barring of the defendant's civil claims in an action under section 1983 and common law battery in a situation where the handcuffed plaintiff was resisting officers and was accidentally shot when an officer mistakenly pulled out and fired his pistol instead of his Taser gun is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant's 1983 claim is barred to the extent it alleges that the defendant lacked justification to arrest him or to respond with reasonable force to his resistance; and 2) the analysis for common law battery is similar to the 1983 claim to the extent that plaintiff does not deny that he resisted the officers he poses no challenge to his conviction and his cause of action against the defendant for use of deadly force is not barred. Read more...