|
|
| |
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 26, 2010
|
| |
|
| |
Gravillis v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., B216373,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: General rule that arbitrators did not exceed their powers under Code Civ. Proc., ? 1286.2, subd. (a)(4), by making errors of law applied to a real estate dispute; the parties did not agree to an expanded scope of review by requiring the arbitrator to render an award in accordance with California substantive law, and errors were thus unreviewable.
|
|
| |
People v. Carter, B210203,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 26, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: During defendant's trial for second-degree robbery, the trial court erred in not giving CALCRIM No. 101, the pretrial instruction that implemented Pen. Code, ? 1122, subd. (a), because the instruction had to be given sua sponte; however, the error was harmless because there was nothing in the record that suggested any prejudice to defendant.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. McPike, A122030,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 26, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although jury convicted defendant of one count of petty theft and one count of receiving stolen property, defendant could not be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property. No effort was made in the information, the instructions, or prosecutor's closing argument to differentiate the property underlying the theft and receiving counts.
|
|
| |
San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., A123914,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 26, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Qui tam complaint alleging that contractors submitted payment requests to a school district at times when the contractors knew they were in breach of a busing contract stated a cause of action under former Gov. Code, ? 12651, subd. (a)(1), because the payment requests included an implied certification of compliance with contractual requirements.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback