 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Holly B., C058116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dependent minor's father lacked standing to challenge juvenile court's order granting a petition for modification to rescind a prior order for a psychological examination of the minor. Process of assessment and evaluation in selecting a specific placement for the minor did not directly affect any legally cognizable interest personal to the father.
|
|||||
| Linthicum v. Butterfield, No. B199645,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McMahon v. City of Los Angeles, B206254,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police department complied with its obligations under Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act in withholding additional materials requested by officer relating to investigation of citizen complaints against him where it appeared department disclosed all adverse comments made against officer and gave him opportunity to respond to them.
|
|||||
| People v. Burns, B205324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in not instructing jury on grand theft from the person under Pen. Code, ¿ 487, subd. (c), as a lesser included offense of robbery under Pen. Code, ¿¿ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), the crime charged, where "purse snatch" in the case, if it occurred at all, was robbery, and there was no substantial evidence that it was anything less.
|
|||||
| People v. O'Shell, D052192, D052648,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator under SVPA, because the evidence was overwhelming and largely uncontested that he posed a substantial, serious, and well-founded risk of reoffending upon release, the fact that trial court erroneously excluded a portion of his testimony relevant only to that point was harmless.
|
|||||
| People v. Pearl, G041316,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence at a suppression hearing was insufficient to prove that defendant was ever a fugitive from justice under Pen. Code, ¿ 3064, during his four years of parole, a trial court erred by finding the prosecution met its burden of establishing that warrantless searches of defendant's living space were justified as valid parole searches.
|
|||||
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. |
