 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, A108911,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment in an asbestos exposure lawsuit where the injured party admitted that he did not know if he had ever been present when anyone was working with the manufacturer's products and relied on an expert's speculation that asbestos fibers could have been released on a ship many years before he came aboard.
|
|||||
| Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property & Business Improvement Dist., B183545,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city's notice for a hearing on a proposed special assessment did not violate Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (e), because the city held the hearing 45 days after mailing the notices; the first day (i.e., the day of the mailing) was excluded from computation of the 45-day period, but the last day (i.e., the day of the hearing) was included.
|
|||||
| Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court, G036211,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action alleging fair credit reporting violations, after a motion for class certification was denied, there was no legal basis for court-approved notices to former potential class members who had been identified in discovery covered by a protective order that they might have claims subject to running statutes of limitations.
|
|||||
| People v. Balint, G034435,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers did not exceed scope of search warrant for defendant's residence under U.S. Const., 4th Amend., when they confiscated open laptop computer under "dominion and control" clause in warrant because a laptop computer logically could serve as container for information tending to establish dominion and control of residence in which it was found.
|
|||||
| People v. Castro, B182028,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for felony false imprisonment under Pen. Code § 236, the facts as to force were sufficiently ambiguous that the failure to instruct on the misdemeanor offense was not harmless. Defendant grabbed the victim and pulled her; the determination as to which offense applied depended on the actual force defendant used in drawing her toward him.
|
|||||
| People v. Najera, G034988,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a prosecutor misstated the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter without objection, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant was not entitled to a manslaughter instruction; the victim's name-calling was insufficient to provoke a sudden quarrel or heat of passion under Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| People v. Navarro, B173591, B175513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions to disclose the identity of an informant and quash a warrant were properly denied because there was no Fifth or Sixth Amendment violation, even assuming that the informant was defendants' lawyer. The purported breach of attorney-client privilege came before the right to counsel attached and there was no showing of government misconduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Petrisca, B188294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting a motion to recuse an entire district attorney's office was error, even though one deputy district attorney was the son of a deceased victim, because the trial court applied an incorrect standard under Pen. Code, § 1424, when it based its decision on the discomfort of the DA's office rather than on conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, B174674,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's settlement agreement with a developer, by which the city agreed not to enact zoning or other ordinances prohibiting construction of the residential units shown in the final map and not to require the subdivision to comply with any new density limitations, was invalid; a promise not to exercise zoning authority was contrary to public policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
