 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, C051775,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which car buyers sued the seller under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the buyers were not entitled to recover postoffer costs, where they failed to obtain a more favorable judgment or award after they rejected the seller's pretrial settlement offer that was made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 998.
|
|||||
| Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, C051775,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a successful lemon law action, car buyers were not entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred after the buyers rejected the seller's offer to compromise under Code Civ. Proc., § 998, because the verdict did not exceed the offer. The lemon law did not trump the provisions of § 998 encouraging settlement, when the two could be reconciled.
|
|||||
| Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., S132772,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Smoker's economic injury claim against tobacco companies could be barred by limitations period of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208, even though there was no presumption that smokers were aware of smoking's addictiveness, because smoker admitted actual or at least constructive knowledge that she was addicted to cigarettes long before filing complaint.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. City of Sacramento, C047180,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Charter city's nuisance vehicle abatement ordinance was invalid because state laws, particularly Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11469-11495, Veh. Code, § 22659.5, preempted local regulation of vehicle forfeiture thinly disguised as nuisance ordinances; state laws fully occupied fields of vehicle forfeiture involving prostitution and drug transactions.
|
|||||
| People v. Bell, S038499,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a jury impasse in the guilt phase of a capital murder trial, the court properly excused the holdout juror for good cause under Pen. Code, § 1089, and replaced her with an alternate juror, because the holdout revealed discussing the facts and her feelings of intimidation to her husband and also stated that she was unable to be impartial.
|
|||||
| People v. Bellacosa, C049291,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pen. Code, § 656, did not preclude a prosecution of defendant for (DUI) and eluding a peace officer in California, even though defendant, who crossed the border into Nevada, was convicted of similar charges in Nevada, because the physical acts that defendant committed in California were not the same physical acts that he committed in Nevada.
|
|||||
| People v. Cooper, B190720,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for theft from an elder, trial court should not have excluded all of a videotaped interview of the deceased victim because the Confrontation Clause did not require the exclusion. The trial court erroneously found that any statement to a police officer was testimonial and failed to consider that nonhearsay statements were not testimonial.
|
|||||
| People v. Myers, G036169, G037074,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although evidence of arresting officer's purportedly violent conduct before defendant resisted arrest did not open the door for State to offer evidence of defendant's violent character, because admission of that evidence was found to be harmless, defense counsel's failure to object on Evid. Code, §§ 1101, 1103, grounds did not prejudice defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
