 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Greenberg v. Superior Court, G040605,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued psychiatrist for wrongful death due to medical negligence after his patient murdered two members of plaintiffs' immediate family, psychiatrist did not owe plaintiffs a duty of care. Although patient had exhibited violent tendencies toward his parents, he exhibited no such tendencies against plaintiffs' family.
|
|||||
| People v. Dyke, A117955,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence did not support a conviction for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor, Pen. Code, ¿ 288.2, subd. (a), because minor's description of television scenes depicting nude dancing and sexual activity did not establish whether the scenes were "harmful" or were part of works containing literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, A120331,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence where officer's search, effected by pulling back waistband of defendant's underwear and visually inspecting his crotch area, did not constitute public strip search and met U.S. Const., 4th Amend., standards, in light of defendant's parole status and reduced expectation of privacy.
|
|||||
| People v. Story, S161044,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and the jury found that defendant committed the murder during the course of rape, trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's other sexual offenses under Evid. Code, ¿ 1108. The other sexual assaults were similar in a number of respects to each other and to the murder.
|
|||||
| K.J. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, C058034,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 340.1, did not apply retroactively to childhood sexual abuse claims brought by plaintiff against a nonperpetrator defendant (a Roman Catholic Bishop) that had already lapsed by virtue of the statute of limitations. Thus, plaintiff's claims were time-barred.
|
|||||
| Somers v. Superior Court, A123445,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Out-of-state residency did not bar a change of gender on a California birth certificate under Health & Saf. Code, ¿ 103425, because a requirement to file the petition in the county of residence implicated the constitutional right to travel and denied rights under the statute to California-born transgender individuals residing out of California.
|
|||||
| Venturi & Co. LLC v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp., B205789 & B206774,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a financial advisor for the development of a single property was not licensed as a real estate broker, compensation could not be denied as a matter of law under Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 10136, because the contract called for plaintiff to provide a range of services, some apparently requiring a broker's license, others seemingly not.
|
|||||
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. |
