 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Titan Electric Corp. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., B194748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a school district's decisions permitting a prime contractor to substitute a listed subcontractor on a public contract took place after the replacement subcontractor had performed the work, contrary to the procedure contemplated by Pub. Contract Code, § 4107, the substitution was nevertheless valid because substantial compliance occurred.
|
|||||
| CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc., B187661,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a licensor's complaint alleging misappropriation of trademarks and patents could not be read to allege a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, the licensees could not recover attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 3426.4, based on the trial court's finding that the allegations of misappropriation were brought in bad faith.
|
|||||
| Goldman v. Simpson, B200082,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment debtor's motion to vacate the renewal of a money judgment in favor of judgment creditor was properly denied because it was untimely, and because it was based on a ground - insufficient contacts with California to confer personal jurisdiction at the time of the renewal - unavailable under Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| In re Corona, 2d Crim. No. B197023,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Paroled sex offender could not be required to waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to his privately retained psychotherapist; such a condition was not reasonably related to parole supervision under Pen. Code, § 3053, subd. (a), as it discouraged additional treatment and was contrary to the goal of reintegrating the parolee into society.
|
|||||
| In re Usef S., A117896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court was not required under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800, and Welf. & Inst. Code, § 791, subd. (b), to determine a minor's suitability for the deferred entry of judgment program once it became clear that the minor was not admitting the allegations against him, but rather was insisting on contesting them at a jurisdictional hearing.
|
|||||
| Jensen v. Superior Court, B200619,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor showed good cause for requested short continuance based on arresting officer's unavailability where prosecutor exercised due diligence and properly served officer with subpoena under Pen. Code, § 1328, subd. (c), prosecutor was unaware officer would be on vacation at time of trial, and officer's testimony was material and not cumulative.
|
|||||
| People v. Enriquez, C055896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Three probation revocation petitions in a case under Proposition 36 (California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) had to be treated as a single petition under Pen. Code, § 1210.1, because of the close timing of their filing, lack of evidence regarding notice to defendant, and drug-related conduct underlying the alleged violations.
|
|||||
| People v. Reyes, C053778,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During defendant's trial for making criminal threats and misdemeanor spousal battery, the trial court had not violated his due process rights by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 852 because the instruction did not allow the jury to find him guilty based solely on uncharged acts found by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| People v. Taylor, 2d Crim. No. B194403,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's appeal of an order committing him to the state department of mental health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender was dismissed because appeals from civil commitments under California's Mentally Disordered Offender Act, Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq., were exempt from the Anders/Wende review requirements.
|
|||||
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. |
