|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - March 28, 2006
|
| |
Allegretti & Co. v. County of Imperial, D045156,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an inverse condemnation action, a county's imposition of a permit condition limiting the total quantity of groundwater available for a property owner's use was not a categorical physical taking and, under a factual analysis, did not have sufficient economic impact to constitute a regulatory taking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re Antoine D., A110521,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Juvenile court erred when it failed to exercise its jurisdiction to rule on a ward's petition for modification of his California Youth Authority (CYA) commitment; Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 607, subd. (b), operated to extend jurisdiction over the ward until age 25, notwithstanding a subsequent order modifying or vacating his CYA commitment.
|
|
| |
In re Marriage of Pearlstein, A108235,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a father sold his shares of stock in a business and received stock in the acquiring company, the market value of the shares he owned in the acquiring company could not be treated as income for child support purposes under Fam. Code, ? 4058, because he sold an existing capital asset, although a reasonable rate of return could be imputed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Musovich, C048031,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Conviction was proper for failing to register as a sex offender, Pen. Code, ? 290, subd. (a)(1)(A), where defendant moved out of the residence where he was registered as a sex offender, had received adequate notice of the requirement that he reregister within five working days of a move, and failed to reregister; a vagueness argument lacked merit.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback