 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| California Family Bioethics Council, LLC v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, A114195, A114282,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposition 71 (approved November 2, 2004) did not violate the single-subject rule of Cal. Const., art. II, § 8, subd. (d), because its provisions, which dealt with medical and ethical standards, conflict of interest standards, and bond financing were directly germane to the single goal of conducting stem cell research.
|
|||||
| Dyer v. Childress, B187804,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Media defendants' special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, regarding an unflattering representation of plaintiff in a movie was properly denied, where defendants failed to show their activity was in furtherance of their right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Autowest Dodge, C050384,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tender and deposit by a car dealership to a customer was not required for the dealership to recover its attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 2988.9, where the dealership denied any liability to the customer and prevailed in the trial court. The statute did not make tender and delivery a prerequisite for an award of attorney fees to the dealership.
|
|||||
| In re Hadley B., G037558, G037689,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred as matter of law in categorically refusing to allow county agency to file amended Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, dependency petition and excluding relevant evidence of events occurring outside county; a juvenile court adjudicating dependency jurisdiction had to consider all circumstances affecting child, wherever they occurred.
|
|||||
| People v. Hernandez, C053061,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision under Pen. Code, § 669, to require defendant to serve sentences for drug offenses consecutively did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; imposition of a consecutive term did not fall within the scope of the Apprendi rule because there was no statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences.
|
|||||
| People v. Navarro, S132666,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pen. Code, §§ 1181, subd. 6, & 1260, did not authorize an appellate court to modify a judgment to reflect convictions for two lesser included offenses upon finding insufficient evidence of a single greater offense. The two-for-one modification of the judgment was improper.
|
|||||
| People v. Robles, B189525,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in allowing defendant to admit probation violations over counsel's objection and in revoking defendant's probation for failing to register as a sex offender without an evidentiary hearing; defendant had a personal and fundamental right to admit the violations over counsel's objection.
|
|||||
| Taus v. Loftus, S133805,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unnamed subject in a study on recovered memory of childhood abuse established a claim for intrusion into private matters against a critic of the study because the critic allegedly misrepresented herself as a colleague of the study's author to gain information from the subject's foster mother. If proved, that conduct could be found highly offensive.
|
|||||
| Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, D047697,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims of retail purchasers of electricity under antitrust laws, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720, and the UCL were preempted by federal law that had occupied field of wholesale electricity market control and regulation because their theories of recovery would inevitably require the trial court to determine reasonable rates for wholesale power sales.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
