|
|
| |
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 - March 5 - March 9, 2010
|
| |
In re Lucas, C062809,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 5, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although an extension of custody under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 6601.3, to complete a sexually violent predator evaluation was unlawful because no exceptional circumstances were shown, Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 6601, subd. (a)(2), precluded habeas relief because the extension could have been based on good faith reliance on an invalid regulation.
|
|
| |
Mike v. Franchise Tax Bd., D054439,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The State of California could impose income taxes on income received by plaintiff, an enrolled member of an Indian tribe, from her tribe's reservation gaming operations, where plaintiff resided on the reservation of a different tribe.
|
|
| |
People v. Memory, C054422,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 5, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Admitting gang evidence in a murder case was error because much of it was not relevant under Evid. Code, ? 350, and was inadmissible character evidence under Evid. Code, ? 1101, subd. (a). Although some of it had minimal probative value, it was inflammatory and prejudicial under Evid. Code, ? 352, because the case was not a gang enhancement case.
|
|
| |
People ex rel. Reisig v. Acuna, C059375,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 8, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Substantial evidence, including criminal records and police officers' declarations, supported a preliminary injunction against gang activity. To establish that the gang activity constituted a public nuisance within the meaning of Civ. Code, ?? 3479, 3480, it was not necessary to prove conduct amounting to a gang crime under Pen. Code, ? 186.22.
|
|
| |
People v. Cobb, S159410,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 8, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant, who had been committed for treatment as a mentally disordered offender, was entitled to release pending trial on a extension petition, unless good cause to continue the trial was shown or he waived time. Trial court retained jurisdiction to try the petition. Deadline under Pen. Code, ? 2972, subd. (a), for beginning trial was directory.
|
|
| |
People v. Lara, S155481,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 8, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although a petition to extend defendant's commitment to a state hospital was filed so late that defendant did not have adequate time to prepare for trial before his term ended, he was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition. Statutory deadlines for filing the petition under Pen. Code, ? 1026.5, subd. (b), were directory, not mandatory.
|
|
| |
People v. Puluc-Sique, A123451,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 8, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Dismissal of an appeal based on fugitive status was not appropriate with regard to a defendant who had been deported. His failure to comply with a reporting requirement while on probation did not make dismissal proper without evidence he had fled, and in accordance with Pen. Code, ? 1255, defendant was permitted to appear through counsel on appeal.
|
|
| |
In re Victor L., A123649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 9, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Gang association, gang activity, and weapons conditions of juvenile probation imposed under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 730, subd. (b), were unconstitutionally vague; restricting access to wireless devices and prohibiting tattoos did not violate First Amendment rights; and prohibiting use of or access to an Internet-enabled computer was overbroad.
|
|
| |
San Francisco Housing Authority v. SEIU Local 790, A123636,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 9, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Arbitrator did not exceed her powers under Code Civ. Proc., ? 1286.2, subd. (a)(4), in finding that an employer had violated a provision of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) requiring it to meet and confer in good faith about the union's alternatives to layoffs; the remedy of placing an employee in another position did not conflict with the MOU.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback