In re Wagner (Wagner vs Superior Court) (2005)

127 Cal.App.4th 138 [-- Cal.Rptr.3d --]

Rights of an accused to have representation before being charged, tried and sentenced. Judge Pamela Iles held Bryan Wagner in contempt and ordered Orange County Sheriff to incarcerate Wagner. When Mr. Hertz asked Judge Iles to release Wagner, Judge Iles stated that she would keep Wagner in jail until approximately 45 days later, and then see if Wagner behaves differently. Mr. Hertz filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeals, 4th dist. Santa Ana requesting a prompt review. The Court of Appeals immediately ordered the Orange County Sheriff to release Wagner and for all proceedings in the Superior Court to be suspended until a full decision on the Petition was made.

The Court of Appeals ruled that not only was Judge Iles in error, but that she violated Wagner’s Constitutional rights to receive a copy of any accusation, to answer and defend such accusation, and a right to hearing or trial, but the Court also held that Iles had illegally required Wagner (and ostensibly others) to pay a contribution to Iles’s favorite charity as a penalty, a practice forbidden by law in the rules of judicial conduct.

In re Mayton (Sears Roebuck and Co. v Mayton) 208 B.R. 61 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997)

Mrs. Mayton was retired and elderly, on a fixed income and was having trouble keeping up with her monthly minimal living conditions in Lancaster California. She filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, requesting that her non-secured, non-priority debts be discharged. Sears Roebuck and Co. contested Mayton’s including her Sears Card in the list of Non-sucured no priority debts, stating that she had signed an agreement that repayment of sums she used in purchase with her Sears Card would be secured to the items purchased. Sears hired a big Law Firm in San Diego to pursue Mrs. Mayton, to recover from her a micro-waive oven and a sewing machine she purchased a few years before the bankruptcy. Sears took the position that the court should compel Mayton to amend her Statement of Intentions to include the micro-waive oven and sewing machine. On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit BAP (Bankruptcy Appellate Panel) held that Sears was mistaken about their “Purchase Money Agreement” and that the debtor could not be compelled to amend her Statement of Intentions. Ultimately Mrs. Mayton was allowed the keep the Sewing Machine and Micro-waive oven as they were exempt under California Law.

*Published cases are those few cases which are selected by courts of review (higher courts) to be published and to remain as precedent for all other courts to follow. Precedent, also known as stare decisis is the tendency of courts to follow a previously made decision.