 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Earp, B201309,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After relieving a deputy public defender in a drug case and provisionally appointing the alternate public defender, the trial court denied defendant his right to counsel when it asked him, without his new counsel present, why he sought to withdraw his plea and then found his reasons unsatisfactory and concluded there was no conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| People v. Rolon, B197488,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's guilt for her child's death based on an aider and abettor theory or on an implied malice theory, where defendant made no effort to protect her child from the child's father, did not call 911, ask a neighbor to help or call for help, or do anything else.
|
|||||
| People v. Tolliver, C049959,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a vehicle, although he owned it, because he conspired to transport controlled substances and disassociated himself from the vehicle by not registering it in an effort to escape criminal liability; thus, he had no standing to challenge a search of the vehicle.
|
|||||
| Villanueva v. City of Colton, E042188,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City was entitled to an award of attorney fees under Gov. Code, ¿ 12965, subd. (b), because an employee's racial discrimination lawsuit was clearly frivolous; moreover, because the employee presented no evidence of his inability to pay, reversal was not required on the ground that the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay.
|
|||||
| Bruni v. Didion, E040946, E041120,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Builders could not compel arbitration in construction defect cases on the basis of a warranty that purported to require arbitration of all disputes, not just those related to the warranty; the arbitration provisions were unconscionable because they were contained in a contract of adhesion and violated the buyers' reasonable expectations.
|
|||||
| Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi, S145428,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Neville v. Chudacoff, B198253,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Letter from an employer's attorney to customers, accusing a former employee of breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets and stating that legal remedies would be sought, was protected speech under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 425.16, subd. (e)(2), because it was made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body.
|
|||||
| People v. Clemons, B190535,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case of custodial possession of a manufactured weapon, which arose from defendant's use of a razor blade to cut himself, defendant had the right under Pen. Code, ¿ 1018, to plead not guilty by reason of insanity despite his counsel's disagreement with that choice, and his self-inflicted injury provided some evidence to support the plea.
|
|||||
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. |
