 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Goodwillie, D046757,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A self-representing defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when the trial court and prosecutor misinformed him of the amount of credit he could receive for good behavior under a plea offer because the court and the prosecutor, as officers of the court, had a duty not to misstate the law, whether intentionally or not.
|
|||||
| In re Arnett, F049847,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not illegal for federal inmate to seek a legal name change while incarcerated. Thus, superior court erroneously concluded that it would be illegal for inmate to change his name. Using the correct legal standard, superior court was to determine whether there were substantial and principled reasons for denying inmate's name change petition.
|
|||||
| McMullen v. Haycock, B187748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 703.080, subd. (a), permitted tracing of exempt funds, transfer of fully exempt private retirement plan assets to retiree's IRA did not necessarily eliminate their full exemption under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 704.115, subds. (b), (d); thus, ¿ 704.115, subd. (e)'s limited exemption should not have been applied to rollover IRA.
|
|||||
| North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno, B188779,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge's failure to answer or strike a statement of disqualification that was filed after entry of a permanent injunction in an action for breach of restrictive covenants could not be deemed consent to disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 170.3, subd. (c)(4), and did not require that the allegations in the statement be deemed true.
|
|||||
| People v. Pedroza, B189682, B194249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for murder and arson, the victim's statements that defendant, her husband, threw gas on her and burned her were properly admitted because they were spontaneous declarations under Evid. Code, ¿ 1240, even though one officer spoke with the victim for five minutes and asked questions. There was also no violation of the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| California Dept. of Corrections v. California State Personnel Bd., F048806,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Policy considerations supported a finding that correctional employees' extensive lying during an investigation of misconduct did not merge with the underlying misconduct; therefore, although the limitations period of Gov. Code, ¿ 19635, had expired as to the underlying misconduct, dishonesty charges were timely filed within three years of the lies.
|
|||||
| Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP v. Kassel, B191761,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a law firm's clients did not invoke their right under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 6200 et seq., to arbitrate a fee dispute, the law firm was entitled to enforce an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement; Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 6204, subd. (a), did not render the arbitration clause unenforceable.
|
|||||
| People v. Phillips, C050503,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper for trial court not to require explanation from prosecution for its excusal of juror. Trial court's comments regarding juror were not offered in substitution of prosecution's explanation for exercise of its peremptory challenge; no explanation was required because trial court had not then found a prima facie case of discrimination.
|
|||||
| People v. Scott, E039093,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was a rational basis for criminalizing incest between consenting adults of the opposite sex who were related by consanguinity, defendant's conviction for incest based on evidence that he had sexual intercourse with his 18-year-old daughter did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
|
|||||
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. |
