Plaintiff attorney sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that granted summary judgment to defendant, California Insurance Guarantee Association, and granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress.
Plaintiff attorney obtained professional liability insurance from an insurer. Plaintiff was sued for alleged professional misconduct. class action lawsuit attorney know all the rights and policies. Plaintiff tendered the complaint to insurer, who agreed to provide plaintiff a defense subject to a reservation of the rights as to all policy defenses. Insurer became insolvent and was taken over by defendant, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). Defendant refused to continue the defense. Plaintiff filed a claim for emotional distress claiming defendant breached its duty to provide a continuing defense. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment. The court affirmed holding that CIGA’s duty to defend was limited to covered claims and did not necessarily relate back to the duty owed by the insolvent insurer under its policy. CIGA rightly denied coverage because it was discovered that plaintiff could not be held liable.
The court affirmed the summary judgment grant to defendant holding that CIGA rightly denied coverage because it was discovered that plaintiff could not be held liable. CIGA’s duty to defend was limited to covered claims and did not necessarily relate back to the duty owed by the insolvent insurer.
Appellant alien resident sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), declaring that certain land purchased by him had escheated to respondent State under the California Alien Land Law, Cal. Gen. Laws, Act 261, §§ 1, 2, and 7 (1945).
The alien resident, an alien Japanese who was ineligible to citizenship under the naturalization laws, challenged a judgment that certain real property purchased by him had escheated to the State. He contended that the Alien Land Law had been invalidated by the U.N. Charter and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reversed the lower court’s judgment. The court held first that the U.N. Charter did not provide relief for the alien resident because it was not a self-executing treaty so as to supersede inconsistent state legislation as provided in U.S. Const. art VI. However, the court determined that the Alien Land Law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the statutory classification of aliens on the basis of eligibility to citizenship was suspect because it in fact classified on the basis of race or nationality. Applying a “most rigid scrutiny” standard of review, the court found that the legislation was not reasonably related to any legitimate governmental interest.
The court reversed the judgment declaring that the property escheated to the State. An attorney was charged and convicted of petty theft. A certified copy of the judgment of conviction was transmitted to the court and the court made an order that disbarred the attorney. He challenged the validity of the order. The attorney argued that his crime did not involve moral turpitude. The court denied the attorney’s motions and petitions and affirmed his disbarment because the attorney had notice of all of the proceedings against him and opted not to appear. The court held that the attorney was aware of the plea he made and should have been responsible for his actions.
The court denied the attorney’s motions and petitions for reconsideration.
Defendant company appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California), which held in favor of plaintiff city in an action to collect delinquent municipal license taxes from the company.
The city brought an action against the company to collect delinquent municipal license taxes. The trial court held in favor of the city, and the company appealed, arguing that it did engage in business within the city. The court ruled that the company not only failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to them but it knowingly neglected to make more than an insignificant use of the orderly procedure provided for securing a correct tax assessment. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the city, concluding that where a defendant attempted to defend an action for collection of taxes upon the ground that its activities did not bring it within the purview of the tax law under which the assessment was made the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies applied.
Read More: What’s are the difference between Attorney and Lawyer
