Skip to content
Name: People v. Hamilton
Case #: D073034
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/21/2018

Defendant's convictions for violating Insurance Code section 1871.4 were not supported by substantial evidence because he received compensation from an agency that does not fall under the provisions of the relevant statutes. A jury convicted Hamilton, a former U.S. Postal Service employee, of three counts of making a false or fraudulent statement for the purpose of obtaining compensation under the state workers' compensation law (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, Hamilton argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under the statute because it applied only to false or fraudulent statements made for the purpose of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Fernando C.
Case #: A139743
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 06/26/2014

Student charged with fighting on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 415.5, subd. (a)(1)) could not be declared a ward based on the offense of fighting in a public place (Pen. Code, § 415, subd. (1)) because it is not a lesser included offense. After minor Fernando engaged in a fistfight at school with another student, the People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that he had fought on school grounds in violation of section 415.5, subdivision (a)(1). Finding that this offense did not apply to a student enrolled at the school (Pen. Code, § 415.5, subd.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jennifer S.
Case #: A122900
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/10/2009

A county ordinance concerning consumption of alcohol by minors was not preempted by state law. The minor challenged a Del Norte County ordinance which makes it a misdemeanor for a person under age 21 to have a blood alcohol content of .01 or more while in a public place in the county. She contended that the ordinance is preempted by state law and therefore void. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. The courts have previously held that regulation of alcohol consumption is not impliedly preempted by state law. The ordinance was enacted to prohibit consumption of alcohol, and does not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McNeil
Case #: A093287
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/21/2002
Subsequent History: None

A search pursuant to an arrest for violation of a local ordinance regarding pedestrians in a roadway could not be upheld on the ground the officers believed in good faith that the ordinance was valid. There was controlling precedent dating back many decades indicating that the ordinance was…

View Full Summary