|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - January 13 - January 14, 2010
|
| |
In re Anna S., D055036,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 13, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in relying on an appellate opinion before the remittitur issued as a basis for issuing a detention order in a juvenile dependency case; the opinion was not final under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272, and was not evidence on which the trial court could rely to detain the child pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 319, subd. (b).
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Duong, A124640,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 13, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although an assault victim was not obligated to pay any amount above her health plan membership fees for medical services received at the plan's facility, charges were incurred on her behalf as a result of defendant's criminal conduct; thus, medical expenses should have been included in the restitution order under Pen. Code, ? 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc., G040727,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 13, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Shareholder was not entitled to attorney fees under the substantial benefit exception to the American rule as codified in Code Civ. Proc., ? 1021, after the corporation made changes to a proxy statement because the shareholder gave no presuit notification and did not show that the changes had an actual and concrete impact on the acquisition vote.
|
|
| |
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, S162313,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 14, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court properly exercised discretion under Code Civ. Proc., ? 1033, subd. (a), in denying an award of attorney fees under Gov. Code, ? 12965, subd. (b), to an employee who prevailed on a retaliation claim because the amount of the judgment could have been rendered in a limited civil case and the fee request was grossly inflated.
|
|
| |
People v. Bankers Ins. Co., F056891,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 14, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Surety was not entitled to discharge a forfeiture made under Pen. Code, ? 1305, subd. (a), and exonerate a bail bond; although the complaint included an additional charge for which the bail schedule would have specified a higher amount, the surety specifically undertook that the defendant would appear on any charge in any accusatory pleading.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback