 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Markley, D045682,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a stalking case, where defendant, an indigent, failed to make an adequate showing of need for a transcript of the victim's trial testimony in a previous prosecution of defendant for stalking the same victim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order the transcript in the case.
|
|||||
| Weinstein v. Department of Transportation, H028124,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a cross-median collision on a highway, Caltrans was not liable under Gov. Code, § 835, subd. (b), for plaintiffs' injuries because there was no substance to the claim that the signage at the accident location did not comply with applicable standards. The standard upon which plaintiffs relied did not require a median side sign.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzalez, H028212,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the People, relying on Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (b), and cases establishing rule of strict causation, argued defendant was entitled to custody credit only if auto theft and gun possession case was sole reason for his presentence confinement, rule did not apply, as defendant's custody could be attributed to multiple, unrelated causes.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc., C050008,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported a finding of permissive use under Veh. Code, § 17150, as to an employee who was driving a car owned by his employer on a personal errand on his lunch break when he was involved in an accident; such use could be inferred from evidence regarding the employer's failure to monitor or supervise the use of its vehicles.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
