 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Assn. of Professional Scientists v. Schwarzenegger, C049928,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State employees' collective bargaining agreement, which incorporated Gov. Code, § 21070.5, did not commit the legislature to maintaining the same rights for all prospective employees in the bargaining unit during the effective period of the agreement; thus, an amendment that applied only to new employees did not impair vested contractual rights.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Kane, A110631,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Prob. Code, § 2580, a probate court had jurisdiction and authority to order the creation of a special needs trust for a conservatee, where the conservatee, who was developmentally disabled, faced substantial living and medical care expenses over a relatively long life expectancy.
|
|||||
| County of Los Angeles v. Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Admin. Co., B179090,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor's attorney was entitled to the imposition of an equitable lien, where attorney expended time and effort in representing contractor in several matters. In continuing to work for contractor even while he was not being paid, attorney acted responsibly and in a manner that merited application of an equitable remedy, i.e., an equitable lien.
|
|||||
| In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases, D045508,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonrepresentative class member who filed an objection to a settlement was not a vexatious litigant because he was not a party to litigation as contemplated by Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(1), he was not a defendant for purposes of § 391, subd. (b)(2), and repeated conduct was not established for purposes of § 391, subd. (b)(3).
|
|||||
| In re Thomas, S063274,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial counsel's performance in a capital murder trial was deficient because he failed to investigate avenues most likely to yield witness's corroboration as to third party culpability or to provide any viable tactical justification for that omission, but habeas relief was denied because there was no reasonable probability of more favorable outcome.
|
|||||
| People v. Hofsheier, S124636,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subjecting defendant convicted of oral copulation with 16-year-old girl under Pen. Code, § 288a, to mandatory sex offender registration requirement of Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a)(1)(A), violated equal protection because a person convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under same circumstances was not subject to mandatory registration.
|
|||||
| People v. Sturm, S031423,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death penalty imposed under Pen. Code, § 190.2, was reversed because defendant was prejudiced by judge's comment that premeditation was a "gimme," when lack of premeditation was defense's central theory in mitigation. Trial judge also committed misconduct by persistently making disparaging comments directed toward defendant's counsel and experts.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Maldonado), No. B185861,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court, after considering expert testimony from both sides, denied the prosecution's motion for a Kelly-Frye hearing on the admissibility of scientific evidence proposed by the defense in a rape case, that decision was not in excess of jurisdiction; hence, writ review was not available to the prosecution under Pen. Code, § 1238.
|
|||||
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. |
