|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - January 24, 2006
|
| |
Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, A110274,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Employer's motion to modify calculation of prejudgment interest awarded to employees was properly denied because employer waived any objection to 10 percent interest rate of Lab. Code, § 218.6, and Civ. Code, § 3289, and because trial court properly applied the 10 percent prejudgment interest rate provided by § 3289 to the accrual of unpaid wages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Evans, A107822,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although defendant argued that the sentencing judge violated his constitutional and statutory right of allocution by refusing to allow him to speak, the proceedings at issue complied with California's statutory right to allocution under Pen. Code, § 1200, because defendant did not seek to speak until after the judge had begun to pronounce sentence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Quintero, D044768,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported convictions for aggravated mayhem in violation of Pen. Code, § 205, and torture in violation of Pen. Code, § 206, where defendant repeatedly slashed the victim's face with a razor blade knife; the evidence indicated that defendant had the specific intent to maim and intent to cause cruel and extreme pain to the victim.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|