 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dyer v. Martinez, G037423,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Real property claimant's lis pendens did not provide constructive notice to opposing claimant under Code Civ. Proc., § 405.24, where it was not indexed at time opposing claimant took his interest in property and thus could not have been located by a diligent title search; as a result, opposing claimant took his interest free from claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Duarte, C049554,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant conspired to use his minor son to transport cocaine in violation of Health & Saf. Code, § 11353, subd. (b), because son's presence, in estimation of defendant and coconspirators, would have enabled defendant to avoid detection; there was no doubt that defendant's taking son with him as he transported cocaine would have endangered son.
|
|||||
| Reedy v. Bussell, G036327 (Consol. with G036328, G036329, G036330 & G036331),
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision to grant motions for terminating sanctions under former Code Civ. Proc., § 2023, in consolidated probate cases, based on failure to produce documents or respond properly to discovery and an attempt to take additional depositions during a trial recess while misrepresenting their nature.
|
|||||
| Yoo v. Jho, B189586,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to the illegal object of a contract between a buyer and a seller, i.e., the sale of a business dealing in counterfeit goods, which both parties had knowledge of, a trial court erred in entertaining buyer's action and in awarding any relief to buyer because the illegal object of the contract precluded any recovery pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1608.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
