California Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Archer Norris Law Firm : Trial, Business, Torts : Sacramento, Bay Area, Los Angeles, California

The Recorder ran an article today about Chief Justice Ronald George's plea that the state not cut the Judiciary's budget by nearly $246 million.

The article covers the Chief Justice's annual presentation before the Legislature.  For those of you without a subscription to CalLaw, here are some of the more interesting points:

"The legislation you enact into law may not be subject to judicial enforcement if that occurs," George said in his annual State of the Judiciary address to the Legislature. "I believe we all agree that a functioning court system is not a luxury - it is an essential component of state government. There are severe limits to how much we can reduce the services that we are required to provide."

The Chief Justice also requested 50 new judges, which the Legislator has tried to put off until 2009:

George also lobbied lawmakers to authorize a final set of 50 new judgeships, even though legislative leaders have already said there won't be enough money to fund them until 2009 at the earliest. And, as he had before, he asked the Legislature to boost pensions for judges appointed after 1994, an improvement, he said, that would attract more candidates "from diverse backgrounds to the bench."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ever find yourself questioning a victory as the verdict is read?

In Zagami, Inc. v. James A. Crone, Inc., Case no. D049563 (4th Dist. Mar. 10, 2008), the Fourth District remanded a case for a rehearing on damages finding that the jury’s verdict was hopelessly ambiguous and refusing to choose between two internally inconsistent verdicts. 

Zagami sued James A. Crone, Inc. seeking compensation after equipment disappeared following delivery.  Zagami claimed an agent of Crone signed for receipt of the equipment upon delivery.  Crone argued it never received the equipment and were therefore not liable for its disappearance.

The special verdict form requested damages on (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) good and services rendered; and (4) an open book accounting. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $15,500 on issues 1, 2, and 4.  On the value of goods and services rendered, however, the jury found that the lost equipment was worth $30,000.

The attorneys made a tactical decision in not asking for clarification of the verdict from the jury.  Instead, they argued before the trial court as to which amount --  $15,500 or $30,000 – was the proper judgment.  The trial court entered judgment in the amount of $15,500.  Plaintiff appealed.

The Fourth District reiterated that, on appeal, the correctness of the trial court’s interpretation of a special verdict is reviewed de novo.  There can be no inference in favor of the prevailing party and there is no preference for upholding a special verdict where the confusion is caused by two questions within that verdict.  Nor can the court choose between inconsistent answers.  Therefore, unless the court of appeal can interpret the verdict intended by the jury from its language in light of the pleadings and evidence, the case will be reversed and remanded for another trial on the issue of damages – which is exactly what they did here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks