|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - March 7 - March 10, 2008
|
| |
|
| |
In re Brandon G., B196011,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Substantial evidence supported allegation that defendant juvenile possessed live ammunition in violation of Pen. Code, ¿ 12101, subd. (b)(1), where police officer who established he had training and experience in handling and recognition of guns and ammunition stated his opinion that shotgun shell he found in defendant's shotgun was a live round.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., D045154, D045579,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action arising from a vehicle rollover, manufacturer forfeited a Due Process Clause challenge to jury's use of punitive damages to punish for harm to third parties because the manufacturer's proposed instruction on that issue incorrectly said that jury could not consider third party harm for any purpose, including assessing reprehensibility.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Zagami, Inc. v. James A. Crone, Inc., D049563, D050090,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a breach of contract action brought by a rental company against a construction project manager, a judgment in favor of the rental company entered on a special verdict was reversed as to damages, where the damages findings in the special verdict were hopelessly ambiguous.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
