 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Douda v. California Coastal Commission, B188210,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying plaintiffs' application for a coastal development permit to build a home, the California Coastal Commission had the power under the California Coastal Act of 1976, Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq., to unilaterally designate environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
|
|||||
| Krinsky v. Doe 6, H030767,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a defamation claim arising from Internet posts, a subpoena to discover the identity of an anonymous poster from a message-board host should have been quashed because there was not a prima facie showing that a libelous statement had been made. The posts were not assertions of actual fact and were protected speech under the First Amendment.
|
|||||
| Sheller v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., B190479,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy, C055192,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Declaration describing a company's statewide business provided substantial evidence that the company carried on its business throughout California within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16601; thus, a noncompetition covenant restricting the seller from competing anywhere in California was not illegal under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.
|
|||||
| City of Los Angeles v. 2000 Jeep Cherokee, B185673 c/w B188182,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a city initiated forfeiture proceedings after an owner's vehicle was seized when he was arrested for soliciting prostitution, because Veh. Code, § 21, precluded any ordinance regulating vehicle use in soliciting prostitution by requiring forfeiture of the vehicle, city's vehicle forfeiture ordinance was preempted by state law.
|
|||||
| Exarhos v. Exarhos, D049883,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Brasure, S072949,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of graphic crime scene and autopsy photographs at defendant's capital murder trial was not error under Evid. Code, § 352, and did not render his trial unfair or jury's penalty decision unreliable because the photos were highly relevant to proof of how, when, and where the victim was tortured and murdered and his personal property burned.
|
|||||
| People v. Chien, H031010,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pen. Code, § 1016.5, did not grant a trial court the authority to vacate defendant's conviction for possession for sale of methamphetamine based on any error or deficiency of defense counsel related to advisement of adverse immigration consequences.
|
|||||
| Goodman v. Lozano, G036774, G037091,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was not compelled to declare home buyers as prevailing parties because they had a net monetary recovery; when litigation resulted in a net zero judgment by operation of Code Civ. Proc., § 877, plaintiff receiving net zero judgment did not fall into category of the party with the net monetary judgment set out in Code Civ. Proc., § 1032.
|
|||||
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. |
