The Mellor Law Firm, APLC

California Real Estate, Construction, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure and Business Litigation Lawyers

    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Call: (951) 221-4744

  • Our Firm
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • Real Estate Law
    • Construction Law
    • Foreclosures
    • Business Law
    • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
    • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    • Contract Disputes
    • Insurance
    • Loan Modifications
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Case Handling
  • Clients
  • Blog
  • Contact

Restrictions On Commercial Speech Regarding Alcoholic Beverages To Be Reconsidered Under Strict Judicial Scrutiny In Light Of First Amendment.

March 25, 2016 by

Restrictions On Commercial Speech Regarding Alcoholic Beverages To Be Reconsidered Under Strict Judicial Scrutiny In Light Of First Amendment.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

During the early 1900s, manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages “tied” retailers to them by providing them with loans, reduced rents, free equipment and other means. Such “tied-house” arrangements caused a vast growth of the number of saloons and bars, resulting in various social evils.

Filed Under: Advertising/Billboard Law News, First Amendment Law News, Legal News, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Law News Tagged With: § 25503(f), § 25503(g), § 25503(h), 810 F.3d 638, 830 F.2d 957, Business and Professions Code section 25503(f), Business and Professions Code section 25503(g), Business and Professions Code section 25503(h)

Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Issue Domestic Violence Restraining Order.

March 14, 2016 by

Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Issue Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

The trial court declined to issue a domestic violence restraining order for two reasons. First, it determined that mental abuse was insufficient, and, second, that past physical abuse was insufficient. The court of Appeal reversed. With regard to mental abuse, the appellate court stated: “In this case, the testimony that the trial court did permit […]

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Criminal Law News, Divorce Law News, Legal News Tagged With: 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 816, 243 Cal.App.4th 816

Retrial Ordered Because Jury Instruction Improperly Shifted The Burden Of Proof.

March 11, 2016 by

Retrial Ordered Because Jury Instruction Improperly Shifted The Burden Of Proof.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed.

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Evidentiary Law News, Insurance Law News, Legal News Tagged With: 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 243 Cal.App.4th 779, CACI No. 2306

Discovery Propounded By Judgment Creditor.

March 9, 2016 by

Discovery Propounded By Judgment Creditor.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

A judgment creditor of a $47 million judgment, as part of its efforts to enforce the judgment, propounded requests for production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030 and later brought a motion to compel. The trial court granted the motion to compel and the judgment debtor appealed. After deciding it is […]

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Discovery Law News, Legal News Tagged With: § 708.030, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 243 Cal.App.4th 741, CCP § 708.030, Civ.Proc., Civ.Proc. § 708.030, Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030, section 708.030

Bean Counter Worker’s Compensation Doctor Never Sees Patient About Whose Care He Dictates.

March 9, 2016 by

Bean Counter Worker’s Compensation Doctor Never Sees Patient About Whose Care He Dictates.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

A worker’s compensation doctor provided a man with a psychotropic medication. Another doctor, an anesthesiologist, who had never seen the patient, determined the drug was unnecessary and decertified it for use. Typically a person gradually withdraws from the drug, but in the present case, it was suddenly stopped and the man suffered four seizures, resulting […]

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Legal News, Workers Compensation Law News Tagged With: 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 696, 243 Cal.App.4th 685

Law Firm Automatically Disqualified.

March 7, 2016 by

Law Firm Automatically Disqualified.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

One shareholder sued another shareholder and a small construction firm over a dispute in the operation of the construction firm. Defendant was represented in the suit by a law firm which had been retained by the construction company in 2006 and never discharged; nor had the law firm ever withdrawn from representing the company.

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Attorney-Client / Attorney Work Product Law News, Legal News, Procedural Law News Tagged With: 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 662, 243 Cal.App.4th 602

Okay For Legislature To Ask The People Of California For An Advisory Opinion.

March 7, 2016 by

Okay For Legislature To Ask The People Of California For An Advisory Opinion.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 310 [130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 73], (Citizens United), a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated federal election law restrictions on the political speech of corporations, holding that a speaker’s identity as a corporation, as opposed to natural person, could not […]

Filed Under: California Supreme Court Law News, First Amendment Law News, Legal News, Procedural Law News, Voting Rights Law News Tagged With: 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 73, 363 P.3d 628, 558 U.S. 310, 62 Cal.4th 486

Strict Time Limits For Court To Rule On Motion To Vacate Judgment.

February 26, 2016 by

Strict Time Limits For Court To Rule On Motion To Vacate Judgment.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment in January 2013. In July 2013, the trial court entered a revised judgment after defendant moved to vacate the judgment.

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Legal News, Procedural Law News, Trial Law News Tagged With: § 663a, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 61, 243 Cal.App.4th 470, CCP § 663a, Civ.Proc., Civ.Proc. § 663a, Code of Civil Procedure section 663a, section 663a

Expansion Of The Doctrine Of Primary Assumption Of The Risk.

February 26, 2016 by

Expansion Of The Doctrine Of Primary Assumption Of The Risk.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

Plaintiff, a United Parcel Service [UPS] delivery driver, was injured when he lifted a box with a shipping label prepared by a university that inaccurately stated the weight on the box. Concluding the university owed no duty to plaintiff and that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies, the trial court granted summary […]

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Assumption of the Risk Law News, Legal News, Negligence Law News Tagged With: 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 243 Cal.App.4th 427, 443 P.2d 561, 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97

Superior Court Abused Its Discretion In Sanction Order Over Discovery Issue.

February 22, 2016 by

Superior Court Abused Its Discretion In Sanction Order Over Discovery Issue.
Share via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share

In a personal injury action, the trial court granted defendant’s Motion in Limine and excluded three of plaintiff’s proposed witnesses as an evidence sanction for failure to respond completely to an interrogatory. Defendant had sent form interrogatory 12.1 asking about witnesses who witnessed “the incident,” and plaintiff responded with the name and address of one witness.

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, Discovery Law News, Legal News, Trial Law News Tagged With: 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 168, 243 Cal.App.4th 269

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 162
  • Next Page »

Call Us: 951-222-2100

Consultations available in-office or over
the phone. Speak to one of our leading attorneys in California today.

Recent News

Restrictions On Commercial Speech Regarding Alcoholic Beverages To Be Reconsidered Under Strict Judicial Scrutiny In Light Of First Amendment.

March 25, 2016 By

During the early 1900s, manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages “tied” retailers to them by providing them with loans, reduced rents, free equipment and other means. Such “tied-house” arrangements caused a vast growth of the number of saloons and bars, resulting in … Read More...

Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Issue Domestic Violence Restraining Order.

March 14, 2016 By

The trial court declined to issue a domestic violence restraining order for two reasons. First, it determined that mental abuse was insufficient, and, second, that past physical abuse was insufficient. The court of Appeal reversed. With regard to mental abuse, the appellate court … Read More...

Retrial Ordered Because Jury Instruction Improperly Shifted The Burden Of Proof.

March 11, 2016 By

In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important … Read More...

Follow Mellor Law Firm

    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Our Areas of Practice

  • Real Estate
  • Construction Law
  • Mechanic’s Lien – Stop Notice
  • Foreclosures
  • Business Law
  • Contract Disputes
  • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
  • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Insurance
  • Lien Stripping Bankruptcy
  • Loan Modifications
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Property Ownership

Navigate

  • Home
  • Our Firm
  • Mark Mellor
  • Practice Areas
  • Case Handling
  • Clients
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Privacy Policy

Practice Areas

  • Real Estate
  • Construction Law
  • Mechanic’s Lien – Stop Notice
  • Foreclosures
  • Business Law
  • Contract Disputes
  • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
  • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Insurance
  • Lien Stripping Bankruptcy
  • Loan Modifications
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Property Ownership

Recent Posts

  • Restrictions On Commercial Speech Regarding Alcoholic Beverages To Be Reconsidered Under Strict Judicial Scrutiny In Light Of First Amendment.
  • Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Issue Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
  • Retrial Ordered Because Jury Instruction Improperly Shifted The Burden Of Proof.
  • Discovery Propounded By Judgment Creditor.

Follow Us

    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Contact our offices

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
6800 Indiana Avenue, Suite 220
Riverside, CA 92506
Phone: (951) 221-4744
Fax: (951) 222-2122
10.0Mark Albert Mellor

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC © 2018. All Rights Reserved.