Acquisition tax due diligence checklist

Appellant liquor license sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Califo ia), which denied the licensee's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Califo ia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to set an order aside revoking his liquor license. The mandamus action was filed against the Director of the Department and others.

The licensee operated a liquor store. In response to complaints that he sold liquor to minors, the city police department stationed two officers outside the store while a minor attempted to purchase liquor. After the minor purchased a bottle of beer, the licensee was charged with a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25658(a) (1954). He was convicted by a municipal court and sentenced to serve 60 days in the county jail. He was in jail at the time of the revocation hearing. However, he was represented by counsel, who introduced a copy of the transcript of the trial in the municipal court. The acquisition tax due diligence checklist department ordered that the license be revoked. The order was affirmed by the Board on appeal. The licensee then filed a mandamus action, and his petition was denied. On appeal, the court found that the licensee failed to establish a defense under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25660 (1954) because the Department did not believe the licensee's story that he demanded documentary proof of the minor's majority before furnishing the alcoholic beverage to him. The Department was not required to prove that the beer was an intoxicant because it was presumed. The licensee was not denied due process.

The court affirmed the judgment that denied the writ.

Appellant challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (Califo ia) dismissing his complaint against appellee doctors for negligent failure to warn because the danger to appellant of appellees' patient's driving was not unforeseeable.

Appellant was injured when appellees' patient lost control of her car due to a diabetic attack and a miscarriage. At the time of the injury, appellees' patient was driving at appellee doctors' direction to the hospital for tests. Appellant brought a malpractice action against appellee doctors for negligent failure to warn their patient of the foreseeable and dangerous consequences that driving in her condition would have on third persons. Appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of his compliant on grounds that appellees' failure to warn was a foreseeable and substantial factor in causing appellant's injuries. The court reversed the judgment. It held that the danger of appellees' patient's driving to appellant was not unforeseeable, and appellees would be liable only if appellant proved that appellees' failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing appellant's injuries.

The judgment dismissing appellant's complaint for negligent failure to warn was reversed because the danger to appellant of appellees' patient's driving was not unforeseeable.