 |
|
 |
|
|
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!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Black Hills Investments, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc., D047894,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer had the right under Gov. Code, § 66499.32, subd. (a), to avoid two contracts for the sale of real estate because they were executed before the recordation of an approved map, in violation of Gov. Code, § 66499.30, subd. (b), and the sale was not expressly conditioned upon the approval and filing of a parcel map.
|
|||||
| Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist., F050117,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public agency's sale of property containing a historic railroad right-of-way was not a project within the meaning of Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065, 21084.1, and did not require California Environmental Quality Act review; although some development was reasonably foreseeable, review would have been premature in the absence of development proposals.
|
|||||
| Ochoa v. Fordel, Inc., F049231,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employment discrimination action, a law firm representing employees did not have to be disqualified under Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310(E), because the evidence supported a finding that no material confidential information was imparted when an attorney previously worked at a law firm representing the employer and accessed related documents.
|
|||||
| People v. Bufford, A108741,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of People's motion to set amount of victim restitution was error; trial court followed procedure of Pen. Code, § 1202.4, and People properly moved to determine amount of restitution pursuant to statutory framework, as soon as possible following dismissal of related charges, in light of defendant's demand for a hearing and refusal to testify.
|
|||||
| People v. Costello, E037674,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, the trial court did not err in admitting as spontaneous declarations several statements made by the victim, the mother of defendant's child, to police officers regarding defendant's prior acts; there was no violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because defendant forfeited that right by his own wrongdoing.
|
|||||
| People v. Salinas, F049017,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Crawford's Confrontation Clause rule was not violated by the admission of evidence that rocks seized from defendant contained methamphetamine. The report of a nontestifying laboratory employee, which came in through the testimony of a supervising criminalist, was not testimonial because it was not offered as a substitute for live testimony.
|
|||||
| Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara, H029345,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent a formal grant of immunity, a public defender could not be terminated for failing to answer his employer's incriminating questions as to the defender's deceptive statements to a judge because the federal exclusionary rule did not abrogate the Fifth Amendment rule requiring use immunity before a public employee could be compelled to answer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
