|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - February 21, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Merfield, No. B190093,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Offender's petition challenging an initial determination that he qualified as a mentally disordered offender was moot because it was filed after his one-year commitment pursuant to that determination had expired; under Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (c), only a determination of current mental status could be disputed after an initial commitment expired.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, B185656,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: City failed to comply with Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (a), when it entered into two agreements to develop property before work on an environmental impact report commenced; there was enough information about the project to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment before the city entered into the agreements.
|
|
| |
Young v. McCoy, B189885,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trustee reasonably exercised her discretion in refusing to make payments from a discretionary trust while the beneficiary was incarcerated because his needs were being met in prison; hence, under Prob. Code, § 15305.5, subd. (c), the trustee could not be compelled to invade the assets of the trust in order to pay a restitution judgment creditor.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|