eBriefs Header
  Friday, April 26, 2019  
LACBA.ORG  |  EBRIEFS ARCHIVE  |  CALENDAR  |  MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS
   
 
 
     
 
The following caselaw summaries are provided as a courtesy to Los Angeles County Bar Association members by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise www.metnews.com. Summaries from the past 90 days are archived and searchable on the LACBA Web site at www.lacba.org/news-and-publications/daily-ebriefs.
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Constitutional Law
A child in the Arizona foster care system had standing to pursue a claim that state-wide policies on the provision of health care violated her due process rights since she had serious medical diagnoses that require prompt and adequate medical care from her custodian, and she presented evidence that she has not received adequate medical care or appropriate placements in the past, as well as evidence that statewide policies and practices expose her to a risk of similar future harms. The constitutionality of statewide policies and practices for providing health care to children in the foster system presents a common question of law and fact that can be litigated as a class action. Since the same policies apply to every member of the class, the risk of harm caused by these policies to the class representative is similar in nature, and can be remedied by uniform injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in a putative class action do not need to specify the precise injunctive relief they will ultimately seek at the class certification stage. A violation of the Medicaid Act occurs when early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services have failed to be provided in a timely manner. Nothing in the text of the Medicaid Act or its accompanying regulations suggests that being at risk of not receiving Medicaid services is itself a Medicaid violation.

B.K. v. Snyder - filed April 26, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-17501
Full text click here
>
Criminal Law and Procedure
A prosecutor's statement that a defendant's office staff had copied information provided by the defendant was not improper, even though no witness directly testified to that fact, when the proposition was reasonably inferred from the evidence. A district court did not plainly err in applying 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3147 and U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.3 to a defendant who continued the same course of conduct that led to his offense of conviction after his pretrial release began. Where a health care fraud scheme is charged as separate counts, a district court must calculate and apply the guideline ranges from the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of each count.

United States v. Wijegoonaratna - filed April 26, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-50255
Full text click here
>
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal Law and Procedure
A warrantless seizure of a blood sample against a defendant's wishes did not violate the Fourth Amendment where the defendant was on formal felony probation as a result of a violation of Vehicle Code Sec. 23550(a) in a prior matter and a condition of his probation was that he submit to chemical testing at the request of a peace or probation officer, with or without a warrant and with or without probable cause.

People v. Cruz - filed April 25, 2019, Fifth District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 1967
Full text click here
>
Government Law
It is not the developer's stated intent, but the recorded terms of government agency approval, that determine project "type" for purposes of the reasonable relationship analysis under the Mitigation Fee Act. A school district is not required to separately analyze the projected impact of agricultural employee-only housing on school facilities as a "type" of residential development under the reasonable relationship test.

Tanimura & Antle Fresh Foods v. Salinas Union High School District - filed April 26, 2019, Sixth District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 1971
Full text click here
>
Real Property
The single–family dwelling exemption to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles does not depend on the original design and use of the property. It is the property's current configuration that determines whether the exception applies.

Chun v. Del Cid - filed April 26, 2019, Second District, Div. Four
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 1982
Full text click here
>
 
 
 
MEMBER BENEFIT SPOTLIGHT
Ruby Receptionists – Any caller or website visitor can be your next big case and Ruby® makes sure you won't miss it.
Ruby is a live chat and virtual receptionist service that provides personalized client experiences to build trust and win new clients. From our US-based offices, our friendly chat and receptionist professionals serve as an extension of your team, answering calls and chatting live with custom greetings and information about your firm.
Since 2003, thousands of attorneys have trusted Ruby to help grow their firms, one connection at a time. Ruby is focused on building meaningful connections with callers and website visitors to increase the likelihood that you'll secure a client for life. To learn more about how Ruby can help your firm, visit www.callruby.com/lacba or call 866-611-7829.

read more
>
LACBA members receive discounts on Metropolitan News Company publications and services. For more information, contact Vahn Babigian at (213) 346-0033 or go to http://www.metnews.com/info.html
 
 
 
The full text of case rulings are in PDF files and require Adobe’s free Acrobat Reader to view. To download a copy go to: www.adobe.com//products/acrobat/readstep.html
Problems or comments?
Email us at ebriefs@lacba.org
© 2019 Los Angeles County Bar Association. The information contained in this document is intended solely for use by the person identified above. Any transmission to or copying for the benefit of another person is prohibited. Metropolitan News-Enterprise, SOS and MNC are registered trademarks of the Metropolitan News Company. Summaries are copyrighted by Metropolitan News Company © 2019, all rights reserved.
   
 
 
 


www.lacba.org

 


www.metnews.com