 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Ryan, F047368,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because commission of any one or more of acts enumerated in Pen. Code, § 470, in reference to same instrument, constituted but one offense of forgery, it followed that, under Pen. Code, § 954, defendant could be charged with multiple counts of forgery with respect to two incidents, but could be convicted of only one such count with respect to each.
|
|||||
| People v. Severance, C048410,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly directed a verdict as to sanity under Pen. Code, § 25, subd. (b), because defendant did not present substantial evidence that he was insane by arguing that after he was hit on the head, Satan took control of his mind and body and he did things that he did not normally do, namely, rob two stores.
|
|||||
| Rostai v. Neste Enterprises, E037544,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no evidence that a personal fitness trainer acted with intent to injure his client or acted recklessly and thereby increased the risk inherent in the activity of personal fitness training, the trainer did not breach a duty of care owed to the client, who allegedly suffered a heart attack during his first training workout.
|
|||||
| Souza v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., C049329,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A skier's collision with plainly visible snow-making equipment while snow skiing on a ski resort's ski trail was a risk inherent in the sport. Therefore, under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the ski resort owed no duty to protect the skier against the inherent risk.
|
|||||
| Sunset Millennium Associates, LLC v. Le Songe, LLC, B188995,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 14-page minute order granting defendant's motion to strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, did not comply with the literal requirement under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a)(1), that the document be entitled "Notice of Entry," where the words "Notice of Entry" appeared on page 13 of the order.
|
|||||
| Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., C045386,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retail corporation was not entitled to an income tax refund on the ground that all gross receipts it had received from the sale of short-term financial instruments should have been included in the sales factor in apportioning income to California; equitable deviation from the apportionment formula was authorized under Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25137.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, F047372,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the California Environmental Quality Act, a prohibition on the development of "big box" retail stores with full service grocery departments did not require a new environmental impact report, beyond the one prepared for the city's general plan, because the purported impact was more closely related to later activities than to the ordinance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
