|
|
| |
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 19 - February 20, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
Gonzalez Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc., H031127,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Disclosure in grant deeds provided actual notice under Civ. Code, ?? 18, subd. 1, 19, rather than constructive knowledge under Civ. Code, ? 1213, of a recorded restriction; thus, as to buyers who received such deeds, fraud and contract claims were untimely under Code Civ. Proc., ? 338, subd. (d), and Civ. Code, ? 1624, subd. (a)(3), respectively.
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re R.V., A121376,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Conditioning a juvenile defendant's probation on wearing a global positioning system (GPS) device was proper because it was a less harsh alternative to an out-of-home placement, which would have been within the juvenile court's authority under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 730, subd. (a), and did not violate juvenile's right to privacy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Scott, S136498,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court correctly instructed the jury, in response to a request for clarification of CALJIC No. 1.24, that employees of a business constructively possessed the business owner's property during a robbery; Pen. Code, ? 211, contemplated constructive possession by all employees on duty, including employees who did not handle the stolen property.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. Jones, A119005,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: After refusing to defend, a liability insurer could not contest the issues of the insured's liability or the damages awarded against it; the insured's obligation to pay the judgment was a loss as defined by the policy, and the judgment was binding on the insurer because it had notice and opportunity to defend, although it was not required to do so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback