|
|
| |
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 - February 4 - February 6, 2009
|
| |
Delucchi v. Franchise Tax Bd., C056503,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Franchise Tax Board properly denied taxpayers' claims for refund of 1995 state income tax payments from a 1986 sale of stock, as, under 26 U.S.C. ? 453(c), characterization of portion of profit that seller received in particular taxable year as either capital gain or ordinary income was determined as of that taxable year, not original year of sale.
|
|
| |
Dixon v. Superior Court, C058858,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Disclosure of coroner and autopsy reports was properly denied under Gov. Code, ? 6254, subd. (f), the investigatory file exemption of the California Public Records Act, because they investigated the death of a person left in a field with bullet wounds, leading to a murder trial, and thus involved a definite prospect of criminal law enforcement.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Bartell, C058918,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An order directing the payment of victim restitution to a bank was proper under Cal. Const., art. I, ? 28(b), and Pen. Code, ? 1202.4, where the bank was a direct victim of defendant's criminality because it had covered forged checks linked to defendant. The bank could not debit its account holder's account once it learned the checks were forged.
|
|
| |
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, No. H031658,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 5, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because California Public Records Act, Gov. Code, ? 6250 et seq., contained no provisions either for copyrighting a county's geographic information system basemap or for conditioning its release on an end user or licensing agreement by the requester, the record had to be disclosed as provided in the Act, without any such conditions or limitations.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback