|
|
| |
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 17 - January 18, 2007
|
| |
California Farm Bureau Federation v. California State Water Resources Control Bd., C050289,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case involving a challenge to annual fees imposed by a water agency, although Wat. Code, ? 1525, was facially constitutional, fees were unlawful as applied by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, ? 1066; there was no showing that charges allocated to payor bore a fair or reasonable relationship to payor's burdens on or benefits from regulatory activity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re Kobe A., B190595,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a dependency proceeding, the failure to give father the specific notice required by Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 316.2, subd. (b), and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1413(g), regarding his paternity status did not affect the ultimate outcome of the proceedings and was harmless error.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Castillo v. Express Escrow Co., No. B186306,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Mobile home buyers could proceed in a suit against an escrow agent that disbursed funds after receiving written notice of a dispute between the buyers and seller; although the notice did not contain a demand not to close escrow and did not cite Health & Saf. Code, ? 18035, subd. (f), that did not relieve the agent of its duty to hold the funds.
|
|
| |
People v. Thomas, A111109,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the information alleged the Pen. Code, ? 803, former subd. (g), limitations extension with respect to three counts of forcible sodomy, and defendant did not request a jury instruction or otherwise raise the statute of limitations issue below, defendant forfeited his contention that the prosecution of the charges was untimely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback