 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alshafie v. Lallande, B198798,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of legal malpractice action brought by out-of-state plaintiff, on his own behalf and as guardian ad litem for his daughter, was reversed, where the trial court failed to follow a procedure that ensured plaintiff received full and fair hearing regarding whether he was financially unable to post a bond pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1030.
|
|||||
| Cahoon v. Governing Bd. of Ventura Unified School Dist., No. B207649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School custodian, who pled nolo contendere to a controlled substance offense as a misdemeanor, was properly reinstated. Unless and until the legislature amended Ed. Code, ¿ 45123, subd. (b), a school district could not automatically terminate a permanent classified employee who entered a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor drug offense.
|
|||||
| Luberski, Inc. v. Oleificio F.LLI Amato S.R.L., G040830,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Code Civ. Proc. ¿ 410.10, the California court had specific jurisdiction over an Italian olive oil seller because the seller purposefully availed itself of the California forum by agreeing to deliver $ 406,000 worth of olive oil to the purchaser in California. The seller was responsible for the goods until they arrived in California.
|
|||||
| People v. Bunyard, S023421,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the penalty retrial for defendant's hired murder of his wife, there was no error in admitting an unavailable witness's prior testimony that defendant unsuccessfully solicited him to kill the victim because, before releasing witness on his own recognizance, trial court made a reasonable determination under Pen. Code, ¿ 1332, that he would appear.
|
|||||
| People v. Hamilton, S052288,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital case, substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against all six of the Black prospective jurors for reasons unrelated to race, such as immaturity and favoring the defense; thus, no violation of U.S. Const., 14th Amend., or Cal. Const., art. I, ¿ 16, occurred.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. Townsend II, D052325,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trust beneficiary's proposed challenge to a trust amendment did not violate the trust's no contest clause because the trust, which was executed after the enactment of Prob. Code, ¿ 21305, subd. (a)(3), made no mention of amendments. Ratification language in the amendment did not render the trust's no contest clause applicable.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Ransweiler, D051983,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The privilege afforded to an officer's conduct under Pen. Code, ¿ 196, precluded liability as to a battery claim by an innocent bystander who was injured by a stray bullet fragment when the officer reasonably used deadly force against a murder suspect. Summary judgment was properly granted on the bystander's claims for negligence and battery.
|
|||||
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. |
