 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, F052009,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sustained ranchers' demurrer to complaint of nonprofit corporation and consumers for violation of Pen. Code, § 597t, and Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., because there was no private cause of action pursuant to § 597t, under the circumstances, and none of plaintiffs showed ability to allege any facts of economic injury.
|
|||||
| California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court, C054168,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a state employee was provided the opportunity to submit evidence, name witnesses, and argue his whistleblower claim, the employee was provided with the type of quasi-judicial hearing sufficient to satisfy Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, even though the State Personnel Board was not required to provide an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| Dominguez v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., G038373,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment in a consumer warranty action because it agreed to refund the consumer's money in response to his prelitigation demand for repurchase or replacement of a motorcycle; its letter requesting another opportunity to repair the motorcycle was not a refusal to comply with Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d)(1).
|
|||||
| Estate of Young, D048937,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On petition to establish estate's ownership of real property, further proceedings should have been allowed as to damages because Prob. Code, § 859, supported position that it was appropriate to prove liability before providing underlying evidence of double damages in form of valuations; estate impliedly sought bifurcation of liability and damages.
|
|||||
| In re S.B., C055838,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's appeal from a juvenile court's probability for adoption finding under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, was premature and therefore not appealable, as juvenile court had not yet found her minor children to be adoptable; an adoption probability finding had no preclusive effect on subsequent issue of whether a minor was likely to be adopted.
|
|||||
| People v. Garcia, F052116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for possessing a sharp instrument in prison, removal orders should have been issued for defendant's incarcerated witnesses because service of a subpoena under Pen. Code, § 1328, was not required before a court could issue a removal order under Pen. Code, §§ 2621, 1567. However, the error in refusing to issue removal orders was harmless.
|
|||||
| People v. Mayberry, C053116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who battered a victim with a standard weighted workout glove containing sand in the palm area should not have been convicted for possession of a dangerous weapon because a standard workout glove containing a small amount of sand, even when used as a weapon, was not a sandbag, as listed in Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1).
|
|||||
| People v. McQueen, A114767,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant for multiple sexual offenses against two minors, the trial court was correct to stay, rather than dismiss, a sentence under the habitual sexual offender law, as a fallback to an imposed sentence under the one strike law, because Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.447 authorized the stay.
|
|||||
| People v. Veale, E042561,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for committing a lewd act upon a child under Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b), there was sufficient evidence that defendant used force, fear, or duress in molesting his 7-year-old stepchild, even though the child testified that defendant did not use threats or physical force, because a reasonable inference could be made of an implied threat.
|
|||||
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. |
