 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, A110069,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs challenged an environmental organization's election procedures, plaintiffs' claims, whether or not they had merit, concerned participation of members in an ongoing controversy and involved statements in connection with an issue of public interest within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(3) & (4).
|
|||||
| Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members, G035101, G035154,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice to the Attorney General of claims under Proposition 65 was insufficient because a list of carcinogens that was present pretty much everywhere, such as in furniture, dry paint, and electric lights, was not meaningfully differentiated and thus was no help in deciding whether to bring a claim in the name of the public.
|
|||||
| Verdin v. Superior Court, E038165,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who raised a diminished actuality defense under Pen. Code, § 28, in response to charges of attempted murder and spousal battery, could be compelled to submit to a mental examination by the prosecution's expert. The reciprocal criminal discovery statutes, Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq., did not change the existing rule allowing an examination.
|
|||||
| Holden v. Los Angeles City Ethics Com., B170359,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a city ethics commission announced, at a public meeting in which it adopted findings and an order, a decision finding violations of campaign financing law, the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.6, for judicial review began to run on the date of the meeting, not when the findings and order were served.
|
|||||
| Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy, B179868 c/w B182058,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Anti-SLAPP motions under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, should have been granted in a malicious prosecution action because a declaration by counsel that plaintiff was not liable in the underlying action was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that defendant lacked probable cause to pursue that action. There was no probability of success.
|
|||||
| People v. Jantz, No. B175147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sanity trial in a murder case, although the trial court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction that a psychiatrist's testimony as to defendant's incriminating statements should not be regarded as proof of the truth of facts disclosed by such statements, the error was not prejudicial and did not require reversal of the sanity verdict.
|
|||||
| People v. Shabazz, S131048,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special circumstance in Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22), was properly imposed against defendant for killing a bystander because it could be upheld when defendant, while an active participant in a criminal street gang and in furtherance of that gang's activities, had performed an act with intent to kill that resulted in killing of any individual.
|
|||||
| Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., B179975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former deputy sheriff who had been indicted on felony charges requested a hearing before the county civil service commission on his suspension, but resigned before the hearing was held, the commission did not retain jurisdiction over the former deputy. The commission also lacked authority to award back pay to the former deputy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
