 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andal v. City of Stockton, C049104,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee payers and cell phone companies could maintain their declaratory relief suit alleging that a fee imposed by a city for its 911 communication system under City of Stockton Ord. No. 011-04 was unconstitutional because they were paying the fee, and because the administrative refund process was inadequate to address their constitutional challenge.
|
|||||
| City of San Diego v. Superior Court, D046281,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Roadway was not inherently defective at the time of an accident in which driver and passenger were killed and another passenger was seriously injured when participant in an illegal street race collided with driver's car; the absence of lights did not establish dangerous physical condition for purposes of holding city liable under Gov. Code, § 835.
|
|||||
| In re Michael R., G035622,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a birth mother rescinded the relinquishment of a child to an adoption agency, a prospective adoptive parent lacked standing to pursue independent adoption as a person with whom the child had been placed for an independent adoption under Fam. Code, § 8802, subd. (a)(1)(C), because the birth mother did not sign an adoption placement agreement.
|
|||||
| Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, A106606 & A107365,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance companies that ceased writing insurance in California were properly assessed for member contributions under the FAIR Plan for two years after their withdrawal, in accordance with Ins. Code, § 10095, subd. (c); while they were closing out their affairs, they were still authorized to transact insurance business in California.
|
|||||
| People v. Gayton, G034527, G035629,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted, where defense counsel was ineffective in failing to review defendant's probation file and present it as evidence to impeach the probation officer's testimony at defendant's probation revocation hearing.
|
|||||
| People v. Hayes, A109299,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court erred when it held a probable cause hearing in a sexually violent predator recommitment proceeding simultaneously with the trial, an impermissible procedure that conflicted with the mandatory probable cause hearing requirement of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602, subd. (a), the error was harmless because no prejudice resulted.
|
|||||
| People v. Le, C049687,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A road rage victim's injuries were "great bodily injury" within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d), as to charges of both attempted murder and discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle because, aside from the pain the victim suffered, he was unable to walk, stand, or sit unassisted for weeks after defendant shot him.
|
|||||
| Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley, G034264,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action alleging that plaintiff was injured when officers used force to obtain a blood sample after arresting him for driving under the influence, the trial court properly dismissed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity because the constitutional rights purportedly violated were not clearly established by case law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
