 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, C057018,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Administrative remedies were not exhausted under Pub. Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a), as to several challenges to a city's approval of a development project and certification of the environmental impact report, and the remaining objections of improperly deferred mitigation and lack of substantial evidence lacked merit.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Rossin, H032258,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disability benefits received by a wife during the marriage were the wife's separate property under Fam. Code, § 770, subd. (a)(1), because she had accrued the full right to those benefits prior to the marriage; she purchased the insurance policy with her own funds prior to the marriage and began receiving monthly benefits prior to the marriage.
|
|||||
| McAvoy v. Hilbert, D052802,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disclosure requirements of Code Civ. Proc., § 1298, applied to an open listing agreement for the sale of a commercial building and a business located in the building because the agreement was a listing agreement as defined in Civ. Code, § 1086, subd. (f), and the transaction involved a sale of real property, even though a business was also sold.
|
|||||
| Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., B206618,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal contract employee's claims under Lab. Code, §§ 203, 226, 226.7, were not federally preempted under the supremacy clause, U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2, by the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA), 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., because the employee's claims complemented the provisions of the SCA and effectuated its goals.
|
|||||
| Oceguera v. Cohen, B205608,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner could obtain a refund under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b), from an unlicensed general partnership and its partners because they did not substantially comply under § 7031, subd. (e), with the licensing requirement when they entered into a construction contract after the only licensed partner had executed a disassociation.
|
|||||
| People v. Hernandez, D053190,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pawnbrokers had a right to procedural due process before the trial court could order that stolen property in their possession and subject to a 90-day hold under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 21647, be returned to the purported owners of the property.
|
|||||
| People v. Pierce, C053995,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversible error was not shown where, during closing arguments, prosecution and defense counsel spoke to jury regarding meaning of "an abiding conviction that the charge is true" as that phrase appeared in CALCRIM No. 220; there was no reasonable likelihood jury was misled or did not have an adequate understanding of prosecution's burden of proof.
|
|||||
| People v. Reyes, B201294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression was not required as to wiretap evidence of a killing because there was no violation of minimization duty, even though the justification for the wiretap warrant was a drug trafficking investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 2517(5) expressly allowed disclosure of intercepted communications about offenses other than those specified in authorization.
|
|||||
| People v. Uecker, C058061,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For purposes of a stalking conviction under Pen. Code, § 646.9, sufficient evidence showed defendant's intent to place the victim in reasonable fear for her safety because he made persistent phone contacts with her despite her attempts to end them, apparently knew that she knew he was a registered sex offender, and had a hostile, demanding tone.
|
|||||
| Taxpayers for Improving Pub. Safety v. Schwarzenegger, C057542,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 could be implemented in such a way as to fall within the contingency exception to the state debt limit set forth in Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 1. Hence, the state did not undertake an obligation that offended the pay-as-you-go principle underlying the state debt limit.
|
|||||
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. |
