 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Capital Research & Management Co. v. Brown, B189249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Attorney General's suit was not preempted because National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996's savings clause, 15 U.S.C. § 77r(c)(1), gave him authority to bring enforcement action against covered security's investment advisor and wholesale broker-dealer who allegedly made inaccurate or inadequate representations to purchasers.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Sykes, C050766,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action, a plastic surgeon's cross-complaint for defamation should have been struck under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, because the surgeon was a limited purpose public figure and he failed to show that statements on the patient's Web site were both false and published with actual malice.
|
|||||
| People v. Price, A111081,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a petition to extend defendant's commitment in a psychiatric hospital was not filed at least 90 days before its expiration as required by Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(2), defendant was not given adequate time to prepare for trial. Thus, defendant's due process rights were violated.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Roe, B182814,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Williams v. Superior Court, D048962,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action on behalf of a decedent's minor children, there was no error in appointing the children's maternal grandmother as guardian ad litem under Code Civ. Proc., § 372, because the father, who had a conflict of interest, did not have constitutional right to select the guardian ad litem, even if he preferred his own parents.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
