 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alcala v. Superior Court, G036911,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Pen. Code §§ 790, subd. (b), 954.1, provided authority to consolidate five murders occurring in Orange and Los Angeles Counties in the 1970s, two of the Los Angeles charges should have been severed because of due process concerns relating to cross-admissibility. They did not share all similarities of other three cases and had DNA evidence.
|
|||||
| Asfaw v. Woldberhan, B182096,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court, in calculating child support, erred when it allowed the father a deduction from income for depreciation of the father's rental property; such depreciation was not deductible in calculating child support under Fam. Code, §§ 4058, 4059, because it was not an ordinary expenditure incurred in the day-to-day operation of the business.
|
|||||
| California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist., G037118,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ed. Code, § 45196, did not permit a school district to deduct, from the pay of an employee on temporary disability leave, the amounts paid to current, classified employees when those employees were assigned tasks of the absent employee because the employees who took over those tasks were not "substitute employees" within the meaning of § 45196.
|
|||||
| County of San Joaquin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C053016,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining the average weekly earnings of an attorney who was injured while on jury duty, Lab. Code, § 4453, subd. (c)(4), was properly applied to find that he was a maximum wage earner; he worked for the county for less than 30 hours, and it would have been unreasonable to ignore his earnings capacity and limit him to the jury duty stipend.
|
|||||
| In re Michael S., G036217,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a mother's son was found to be a juvenile delinquent based on his admission to felony arson, the acceptance by the victim of a payment from the mother's insurer in full release of all claims against the mother and the son precluded any restitution liability on the part of the mother under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.7.
|
|||||
| O'Neill v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., B174512,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability action alleging that unsafe pharmaceutical drugs caused injury, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that action or inaction by the United States Food and Drug Administration, though not dispositive, could be considered to show whether a product was safe or not safe.
|
|||||
| People v. Dulan, H028838,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was ordered to register as sex offender under Pen. Code, § 290, after he pleaded no contest to engaging in sexual intercourse and oral copulation with a person under the age of 16, discrepancy regarding registration requirement for oral copulators as opposed to treatment of genital copulators violated equal protection.
|
|||||
| People v. Zaidi, A114292,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not advise defendant that the sex offender registration requirement under Pen. Code, § 290, would be for the duration of his life, and because he established prejudice from the trial court's failure to so advise.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
