 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chang v. Lederman, B199813,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate attorney owed no duty of care to a testator's widow, who was an expressly named beneficiary of a trust, as to an allegation that the testator intended to revise his trust and will to leave his entire estate to her and would have done so but for the attorney's negligence; recognizing such a duty would impose an undue burden on the profession.
|
|||||
| In re K.M., No. B206435,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a child's mother argued that the child's maternal great-grandmother might have provided information about possible heritage in some other Indian tribe, a county human services agency did all that could or should have been reasonably expected of it under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
|
|||||
| In re Rozzo, D049704,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Some evidence supported the Governor's decision under Cal. Const. art. V, ¿ 8, that an inmate was unsuitable for parole because there was evidence in the record that after amassing an increasingly serious criminal record, the inmate committed an unprovoked, heinous, atrocious and cruel murder, motivated by racial hatred that he never acknowledged.
|
|||||
| Peak-Las Positas Partners v. Bollag, No. B205091,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case relating to a land sale contract, the trial court properly found that the seller acted unreasonably and ordered the seller to extend the escrow because under Civ. Code, ¿ 3275, equity abhorred a forfeiture, and the buyer stood to lose $ 465,000 already paid (98 percent of the purchase price) and about $ 5 million in project costs.
|
|||||
| People v. Grimes, C058369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the superior court clerk did not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(c)(1), when she failed to promptly mail to the appellate court notification of the filing of defendant's notice of appeal, the judgment was affirmed because defendant was not prejudiced.
|
|||||
| People v. Kim, S153183,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was procedurally barred from obtaining coram nobis relief because his presentation of claims after completing parole was untimely, he had other legal remedies as contemplated by Civ. Code, ¿ 3523, and he presented his claims piecemeal; moreover, his alleged ignorance of the deportation consequences of his plea was not a mistake of fact.
|
|||||
| People v. Maldonado, H031506,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted for possessing methamphetamine for sale, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that defendant was unemployed at the time of his arrest. Defendant's statement to a police officer that he was unemployed was relevant to show that defendant had a motive to sell drugs.
|
|||||
| People v. Villa, S151561,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a resident alien facing deportation for a 1989 conviction for a drug crime, the alien, who was being detained by federal immigration authorities in Alabama, was ineligible for habeas corpus relief because the alien was no longer in state custody as a result of the 1989 conviction.
|
|||||
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. |
