|
|
| |
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 21, 2010
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Kelly, S164830,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 21, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The California Supreme Court concluded that, insofar as Health & Saf. Code, ? 11362.77, burdens a defense under California's Compassionate Use Act (CUA) to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana, it impermissibly amends the CUA and in that respect is invalid under Cal. Const., art. II, ? 10, subd. (c).
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Sok, B213467,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 21, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial court erred in applying the criminal street gang enhancement to defendant's sentence for shooting at an occupied vehicle because Pen. Code, ? 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(A), combined an underlying felony with an enhancement in order to establish a minimum term.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Steroid Hormone Product Cases, B211968,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 21, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a suit alleging that consumers were misled into buying an illegal product, Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 17204, did not require a showing of causation and injury as to unnamed class members, and Civ. Code, ? 1781, subd. (a), allowed such a showing to be made by establishing that a reasonable person would not knowingly make an illegal purchase.
|
|
| |
Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York, B204878,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 21, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Insured's misrepresentation of the types of cargo it hauled entitled an insurer to avoid coverage under a cargo liability insurance policy pursuant to Ins. Code, ?? 331, 359, as to a claim for damage to an undisclosed item; an underwriter's testimony that the premium was based on the types of cargo established materiality under Ins. Code, ? 334.
|
|
| |
Total Call International, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., B212923,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 21, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Insurer had no duty to defend claims of its insured's competitors that insured had falsely advertised its products because the complaint, which failed to identify any specific references made by insured to competitors or to their products, did not allege a potentially covered advertising injury; moreover, a nonconformity exclusion barred coverage.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback