 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Etheridge v. Reins Internat. California, Inc., B205005,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which server claimed that restaurant's mandatory tip-pooling policy requiring him to share tips with certain other restaurant employees violated Lab. Code, § 351, trial court properly sustained restaurant's demurrer on the basis that employees who did not provide direct table service could still participate in mandatory tip pools.
|
|||||
| Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles, H032196,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A driver's blood test results were not admissible under Evid. Code, § 1280, or Veh. Code, § 23612, where there was no evidence that the test result was entered into a computer database or recorded in any manner prior to the preparation of the written report, which was done one week after the analysis was completed.
|
|||||
| Muller v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center, B196684, B199316,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued a hospital and a doctor for medical negligence, plaintiffs' motion for sanctions based on alleged discovery abuses on the part of defendants was properly denied. Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, did not apply because the motion should have been served 21 days before it was filed, but that was not done.
|
|||||
| People v. Bermudez, A119028,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which appellant filed a petition for a determination of factual innocence, the trial court properly rejected appellant's contention that the two-year statutory limitations period imposed by Pen. Code, § 851.8, subd. (l), did not apply to petitioners like him, who had charges lodged against them, but were not convicted.
|
|||||
| People v. Fisher, No. B207595,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which the trial court entered an order authorizing a state hospital to forcibly administer psychotropic medications to defendant, a mentally disordered offender, pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5300, defendant's absence from court was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| The Fifth Day, LLC v. Bolotin, B201556,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although LLC had no contractor's license, its claims were not barred by Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (a), where LLC was not a contractor within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7026, and LLC neither contracted to perform any of the activities listed in statutory definition of a contractor, nor performed any of those activities.
|
|||||
| Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., A120678,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly awarded appellant 10 percent prejudgment interest under Civ. Code, § 3291, against respondents jointly and severally after they rejected appellant's offers to compromise because although two respondents were found liable by jury, only one judgment resulted, and interest imposed by § 3291 was to be calculated on that amount.
|
|||||
| In re Nolan W., S159524,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency proceeding, it was an abuse of discretion to hold a mother in contempt and incarcerate her for failing to participate in a substance abuse program because Welf. & Inst. Code, § 213, did not authorize that action, even though the court had authority to order the mother to participate in the program as part of reunification plan.
|
|||||
| People v. Chun, S157601,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in instructing on felony murder because although second-degree felony-murder rule was constitutionally valid, all assaultive-type crimes, such as shooting at occupied vehicle in violation of Pen. Code, § 246, as defendant had done, merged with charged homicide and could not be basis for a second-degree felony-murder instruction.
|
|||||
| People v. Ramirez, G038125,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Pen. Code, § 186.22, gang-participation conviction and enhancements were proper, as expert testimony showed his gang closely controlled narcotics trafficking by members, imposing "tax" on drug sales, and jury could reasonably infer defendant, a longtime member, knew of and abided by policy, and thus his drug offenses were gang-related.
|
|||||
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. |
