 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Capo for Better Representation v. Kelley, G037690,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County registrar of voters did not err in disqualifying signatures for a recall petition of all members of a school district board where signers' addresses had been filled in by someone other than the actual signer, which violated Elec. Code, §§ 100 and 11043, because it circumvented board members' right to be judged on their own individual merits.
|
|||||
| Good v. Superior Court, A117317,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Proposition 69 required misdemeanants who had to register as sex offenders to provide DNA samples, regardless of whether conviction triggering registration requirement occurred before or after 2004 passage of Proposition 69, sex offender convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1996 had to provide sample at next annual registration.
|
|||||
| Huh v. Wang, H030905,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Elizabeth M., G038729,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in reducing visitation of an incarcerated father who was not at the hearing; regularity of proceedings could not be presumed under Evid. Code, § 664, because there was no inquiry into the suspicious circumstances of a handwritten purported stipulation, and the father had been assured there would be no change to his visitation.
|
|||||
| Jessen v. Mentor Corp., B191278,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a product liability action brought by plaintiff, who had a cancerous testicle removed and replaced with a testicular prosthesis, a Class III medical device, plaintiff's state law claims against the device's manufacturer were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq.
|
|||||
| People v. Alanis, H031059,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant initially agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court recalled its sentence to permit defendant to withdraw his plea, conducted a bench trial, and entered a new judgment finding defendant guilty while defendant's appeal was pending, the trial court's actions were null and void.
|
|||||
| People v. Paredes, E040123,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal of a public defender over defendant's objection violated the right to counsel of choice under Cal. Const., art. I, § 15, because a potential conflict of interest arising from the office's former representation of a potential witness was minor and could have been eliminated by appointing associate counsel to cross-examine the former client.
|
|||||
| Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, G038649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly allowed a referendum election to go forward. The only reason that proponents of the referendum had petition signers also witness their own signatures as circulators was because Elec. Code, § 9238, subd. (c), unconstitutionally restricted the pool of circulators to a tiny fraction of what it constitutionally should have been.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
