After a bit of delay, here’s a report on the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference.
Eminent domain
The court granted review in Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, and it limited review to this issue: “When a public entity files an eminent domain action seeking to take privately held public utility property, and the owner objects to the right to take, what is the proper standard of judicial review for the trial court to apply to determine whether the property owner has rebutted the presumptions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.250, subdivision (b) and 1240.650, subdivision (c)?”
The Fourth District, Division Two, published opinion, disagreeing with the Third District decision in Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 819, concluded that courts should give deference to a public entity’s decision to take privately owned public utility property, as opposed to using a gross abuse of discretion standard of review having the superior court act as the trier of fact to determine whether the utility has rebutted the statutory presumptions. The Supreme Court denied review in the PG&E case.
Horvitz & Levy filed the successful petition for review.
Racial Justice Act denial
The court denied review in People v. Lawson. In a published opinion, the Second District, Division One, affirmed a second degree murder conviction, rejecting an argument that trial court rulings violated the Racial Justice Act (here and here). As summarized in the opinion, the defendant — a Black man — contended the rulings “emphasized defendant’s criminality while minimizing that of his white victim.” Division One concluded they “were ordinary evidentiary rulings based on relevance and do not demonstrate implicit racial bias under the Racial Justice Act’s preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Football wrongful death denial
The court rejected the petition for review in Gee v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The Second District, Division Eight, belatedly published opinion affirmed a defense judgment after jury trial in a wrongful death action brought by the widow of one of a number of former USC football linebackers to die with a brain injury, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Division Eight held the superior court properly ruled that assumption of the risk applied because the decedent’s “injury was caused by an inherent risk of college football: repeated head hits.” “[I]t is not the specific injury which is determinative, it is the nature of the conduct or condition which caused it,” the appellate court said.
Sales tax vote denial
The court also opted not to hear Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association v. County of Alameda, and it further denied a request to depublish the First District, Division Five, partially published opinion. The opinion held, among other things, that a county sales tax was validly approved by a simple majority of the voters. A two-thirds vote was not required, Division Five concluded, because the tax was not a “special tax” under the state Constitution.
Criminal case grant-and-holds.
There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds: five more waiting for a decision in People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued earlier this month; one more holding for People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (see here and here); one on hold for People v. Shaw (see here); and one more waiting for People v. Lopez (see here).
