|
|
| |
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 16 - February 20, 2007
|
| |
Guillen v. Schwarzenegger, A106873,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under former Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 11453, subd. (c)(3), State incurred no obligation to pay a COLA in 2003 to welfare recipients; there was no increase in tax relief pursuant to former Rev. & Tax. Code, ? 10754, during that fiscal year because vehicle licensing fee tax relief was statutorily fixed at 67.5 percent from July 1, 2001, forward.
|
|
| |
Luckett v. Keylee, B187489,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court committed reversible error by awarding attorney fees to defendants pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.7, on the basis of plaintiff's failure to post a vexatious litigant bond, where plaintiff's complaint was dismissed solely for failure to post the required bond.
|
|
| |
People v. Hutchins, B187104,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court wrongly applied clear and convincing evidence standard to determine whether a peremptory challenge was based on purposeful race discrimination in violation of defendant's Cal. Const., art. I, ? 16, rights because preponderance of evidence, general standard in California jurisprudence, applied to final step of a Wheeler/Batson challenge.
|
|
| |
People v. Santos, B187213,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: No violation of substantive due process occurred when the trial court, after a verdict convicting defendant of murder was read and recorded, applied Code Civ. Proc., ?? 237, 206, to protect the privacy of the jurors by allowing them to exit through a private corridor without speaking to the parties; the right to an impartial jury was not denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback