 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Burdan, C056099,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Justification given by governor for denying parole, which was that inmate shot his wife multiple times at close range, could not withstand scrutiny because governor cited no evidence to suggest, in light of overwhelming evidence of suitability for parole, inmate's release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society under Pen. Code, § 3041.
|
|||||
| In re Lawley, S089463,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On habeas corpus review of a murder conviction under Pen. Code, § 187, prisoner did not did not establish actual innocence, even though the shooter testified to acting for a prison gang rather than the prisoner, because a reasonable jury would not have been compelled to accept the alternative theory, given doubts about the shooter's credibility.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, S145959,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(2), did not apply to petitioner, whose conviction that was the basis of his prison custody at the time sexually violent predator proceedings were initiated had been reversed, and who had not been retried and reconvicted.
|
|||||
| In re William K., C055107,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the biological father's sex offender status and other evidence, a juvenile court did not err in ruling under Fam. Code, § 7575, subd. (b)(1), that it would not be in a minor's best interest to set aside a voluntary declaration of paternity executed by another man who held the minor out as his own child and intended to marry the mother.
|
|||||
| Luckett v. Panos, G038430,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's refusal to lift a prefiling order against an individual who had been designated a vexatious litigant under Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, was not error because he continued to file suits after being designated a vexatious litigant and did not accurately state the facts to the trial court; thus, he did not show that he had mended his ways.
|
|||||
| People v. Abercrombie, C051865,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of, inter alia, lewd conduct with a child, the trial court's imposition of an upper term sentence for defendant because he was on parole at the time of the crime did not run afoul of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Keil, No. B196206,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sustained five-year firearm prohibition and ordered firearms of defendant detained under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150, forfeited under Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 810, 8103, as evidence was sufficient to show he would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner and return would result in danger to him and others.
|
|||||
| People v. Miranda, C053362,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The corpus delicti rule was not violated by an instruction that an enhanced sentence under Pen. Code, § 11379, subd. (b), for transporting drugs between non-contiguous counties could be imposed based on defendant's statements alone because the corpus of an offense did not include an element that only aggravated the penalty.
|
|||||
| People v. Tatum , D051185,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed as untimely under Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (a), a petition to involuntarily commit a parolee as a mentally disordered offender; the trial court reasonably concluded that the delay was extensive, the proffered justification of misfiling of a report trivial, and the prejudice significant.
|
|||||
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. |
