Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge properly granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant who argued that the plaintiffs, who asserted negligence claims against three property owners whose land overlooked the area where large rocks allegedly rolled onto a roadway, failed to establish group liability based on a theory of joint malfeasance in not protecting the parcels against landslide risks.

The Third District Court of Appeal has held that a city is entitled to a vote on its own proposal seeking to implement a new storm drainage fee—under a provision of the California Constitution mandating approval by the majority of landowners before any new “property related” charge is imposed—where the municipality owns affected parcels.

A superior court may not, based on a local rule, decline to hear a summary judgment motion that meets statutory criteria, Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in an opinion which the California Supreme Court yesterday ordered to be published.

Courts have long interpreted the “jury of peers” standard to mean a jury “of equals,” taken randomly from a pool that includes “a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender,” according to Law.com’s online legal dictionary. But while about 9 out of 10 defendants nationwide are too poor to afford lawyers, most jurors aren’t in that low of an income bracket.