February 2013 Archives

Standing next to a gang member could be enough to justify probation revocation.

James Davis Gipson, Jr. is a member of a gang called the Grape Street Crips. Gipson ran into trouble with the law, and pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while a felon, and to possessing an assault rifle. Additionally, Gipson admitted that he committed crimes for the benefit of a gang.

In 2010, Gipson was sentenced to five years in state prison. The sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. As a condition of his probation, Gipson was told not to associate with known gang members.

Last week, the California Supreme Court decided that Corporations Code Section 2010, which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations, does not apply to foreign corporations.

The case stemmed from Walter and Karen Greb's 2008 asbestos lawsuit against Diamond International Corporation and several other entities. Although Diamond had been dissolved for many years, the Grebs sought recovery from unexhausted liability insurance that covered Diamond during the decades when it did business in California.

The San Francisco Law Library filed a lawsuit this month against the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that officials are violating a City Charter provision that mandates proper funding and adequate space for the law library.

San Francisco has allegedly violated the charter provision since 1995.

A California court ruled this week that parental rights can be legally terminated when a parent poses a danger to his child, even if the danger results from a treatable mental disability.

The parents in this case married and adopted their minor child. Prior to the marriage, the father suffered from mental illness, but had taken medication that allowed him to function normally. Shortly after they adopted the child, the father stopped taking his medication. As he failed to take medication, his mental condition deteriorated to the point where it seriously impacted his relationship with his wife and child, resulting in restraining orders.

Mixed-motive termination cases in California just got a little more interesting.

The California Supreme Court ruled last week that a jury in a mixed-motive case alleging unlawful termination should be instructed that it must find the employer's action was substantially motivated by discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to make a same-decision showing, and that a same-decision showing precludes an award of reinstatement, backpay, or damages.

It’s somewhat ironic that the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the legality of city-wide medical marijuana dispensary (MMD) bans in San Francisco, of all places.

Tuesday, judges from the state’s highest court held a special outreach session at the University of San Francisco School of Law, within a mile of the city’s famous Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. The first case on the docket for the day: Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center.

The legal profession has too many lawyers and too few jobs. California has too many lawyers, and too few jobs.

So how does the California State Bar Board of Trustees plan to combat this problem? By creating a new class of professionals who could give legal advice, reports the California Bar Journal.

Except, wait. That compounds the problem, doesn't it?