|
|
| |
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 15 - January 16, 2009
|
| |
In re Walter P., C056550,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant minor's home supervision probation condition did not amount to physical confinement and was an acceptable juvenile probation condition under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 202, because at no point was he removed from his parents' physical custody, he could leave for school, and he could leave his home any time he was accompanied by a parent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Kenefick, C055070,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was improperly convicted of four counts of forgery under Pen. Code, ? 470, subd. (a), based on forging the signatures of four individuals on two notes, because there could not be multiple convictions based on any subdivision of ? 470 with only one document involved. With two forged documents, there could be only two counts of forgery.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc., G041305,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an involuntary dissolution proceeding, a decree requiring a corporation to buy out shares under Corp. Code, ? 2000, to avoid dissolution could not, as a self-executing order, be automatically stayed on appeal. Because this was a special proceeding, the stay rules under Code Civ. Proc., ? 22, did not apply, as provided in Code Civ. Proc., ? 23.
|
|
| |
Eder v. Department of Fish & Game, A120532,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Dungeness crab permits were properly revoked because fishers violated Fish & G. Code, ? 8279.1, subd. (c), by fishing for crab in San Francisco and then in Oregon sooner than the permitted. Section 8279.1 was not an extraterritorial regulation of legal Oregon conduct and did not violate the Commerce or the Privileges and Immunities Clauses.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback