 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, H030272,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's action seeking to enjoin specified union employees from engaging in a work stoppage was properly dismissed because California's Public Employment Relations Board had exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether particular public employees covered by California's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act had right to strike in cases implicating the Act.
|
|||||
| Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp., No. B175953,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from an oil pipeline leak, a $ 5 million punitive damages award violated the federal Due Process Clause because it was based on evidence of dissimilar conduct, including that, with regard to other spills, the company had engaged in concealment, denied responsibility, and misrepresented the magnitude of environmental damage.
|
|||||
| In re Alejandro A., D051300,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a delinquency proceeding, although defendant contended that there was substantial evidence to conclude he could be an Indian child, it was not necessary to conduct an inquiry to determine if he was an Indian child before any disposition order was made, where there was no evidence defendant was an Indian child such that the ICWA applied to him.
|
|||||
| Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Com., C052872,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation that filed suit to preserve an experimental marine forest was not entitled to Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1021.5, attorney fees; it was not the prevailing party after reversal of a judgment in its favor, and it could not obtain fees under the catalyst theory because a statutory amendment prompted by the suit was not the primary relief sought.
|
|||||
| People v. Chavez, B185907,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of, among other things, assault upon a peace officer, the trial court should have ordered defendant to serve his state mental hospital commitment first based upon the trial court's determination that defendant had not fully regained his sanity under Pen. Code, ¿ 1026.
|
|||||
| People v. Felix, B193558,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant, who was convicted of two counts of murder, argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 315 because the instruction improperly limited the factors the jury could consider in evaluating eyewitness testimony, the instruction did not oblige the jury to disregard factors not listed in the instruction.
|
|||||
| People v. Short, C055359,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Settlement payment from defendant's employer's insurer to the victim of a collision defendant caused while intoxicated and driving his employer's vehicle was deemed to be restitution from defendant under Pen. Code, ¿ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1), because the insurance company was contractually obligated to pay on behalf of both defendant and his employer.
|
|||||
| People v. Stone, F051812,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Kill zone instruction was inappropriate on a charge of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation under Pen. Code, ¿¿ 664, 187, subd. (a), because there was no evidence that defendant, in shooting toward a group, used a means to kill the named victim that inevitably would result in the death of other victims within a zone of danger.
|
|||||
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. |
