 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Fuentes, F053785,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had not given incorrect jury instructions where there was no conflict between Judicial Council of California, Criminal Jury Instruction pattern instructions on motive and mental-state elements of substantive offense of criminal-street-gang participation or sentence-enhancement and special-circumstance provisions related to street gangs.
|
|||||
| People v. Mendoza, H032314,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have authority, while defendant was still on probation, to reduce a county jail term imposed as a condition of probation when defendant had already served that term, nor was it authorized under Pen. Code, § 1202.3, to modify a jail term that was included within the terms of a negotiated plea agreement.
|
|||||
| People v. Vang, C058020,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly refused defendant's proposed modification of CALCRIM No. 226 because it would have misstated the law and was unnecessary to inform the jury how to weigh the possibility that the victim's testimony was inaccurate for any reason other than deliberate lying; CALCRIM No. 226 as given fully covered the defense theory of the case.
|
|||||
| California School Boards Assn. v. State of California, C055700,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court concluded that, to the extent Gov. Code, § 17556, subd. (f), as amended, provided that the state did not need to reimburse local governments for imposing duties that were expressly included in or necessary to implement a ballot measure, it was consistent with Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6.
|
|||||
| HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court, B211881,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff sued nonresident holding company, the trial court erred in denying company's motion to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction, where plaintiff did not show that company purposefully directed its activities at California, either directly or through a subsidiary or any other person or entity.
|
|||||
| People v. Hamlin, C053982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Roa, B201676,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's finding that defendant used a gun in a carjacking was supported by substantial evidence. Two witnesses identified defendant as the gunman. Witnesses had prior knowledge of defendant and his appearance, they had a distinct opportunity to observe him during the gun use, and there was no demonstrated motive for them to implicate him falsely.
|
|||||
| People v. Wagner, S156537,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended for one offense and who, while still on probation, was convicted of an unrelated offense and incarcerated on the unrelated offense, defendant had a choice to request speedy sentencing under either Pen. Code, § 1203.2a, or Pen. Code, § 1381.
|
|||||
| State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co., S149988,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insured seeking to avoid a pollution exclusion in comprehensive general liability policies had the burden of proving that sudden and accidental discharges were a substantial cause of indivisible property damage; it was not required to differentiate damage caused by sudden and accidental discharges from that caused by gradual leakage of wastes.
|
|||||
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. |
