 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Chaudhary, H032794,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in directing the Board of Prison Terms to hold a discharge review hearing to determine whether there was good cause to retain a parolee on parole because time that the parolee spent in prison prior to his release on parole could not be credited against Pen. Code, ¿ 3000.1's five-year parole discharge eligibility requirement.
|
|||||
| In re Lewis, H032044,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was linguistically illogical for the Board of Parole Hearings to characterize most murder commitment offenses as "especially" heinous, atrocious or cruel, the trial court erred in finding that the application of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, ¿ 2402, subd. (c), was unconstitutionally vague because the Board's additional reasons were ignored.
|
|||||
| Szynalski v. Superior Court, No. B212278,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a settlement administrator's suit for payment of fees, the trial court had personal jurisdiction in accordance with Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 410.10, over a nonresident who had signed the settlement, agreed to pay the fees, and agreed that the trial court would retain jurisdiction; his attempt by reservation to restrict jurisdiction was ineffective.
|
|||||
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. |
