 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., S119575,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Gov. Code, § 831.7, did not extend immunity protection to injuries sustained by a community college baseball player who was hit by a pitch by a rival college team's pitcher, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred any claim predicated on the allegation that the pitcher negligently or intentionally threw at the player.
|
|||||
| Hillsboro Properties v. City of Rohnert Park, A110441,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where landlords sought to recover rents in excess of the rent control ceiling for a period during which an ordinance later found unconstitutional was in force, their complaint alleging inverse condemnation and an unconstitutional taking was insufficient because it did not allege that enforcement of the ordinance had deprived them of a fair return.
|
|||||
| People v. Fraser, H028312,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a recommitment proceeding under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq., the trial court did not err in denying a request for self-representation because there was no constitutional right to self-representation in SVPA civil commitment proceedings.
|
|||||
| People v. Jurado, S042698,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital case, a conditional examination of a prosecution witness was permitted, under Pen. Code, §§ 1335 and 1336, when a witness's life was in jeopardy. Prosecution's application to conditionally examine a witness was sufficiently supported by district attorney's belief that witness's life would be in jeopardy once information became known.
|
|||||
| Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc., B182625,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the California Industrial Welfare Commission exceeded its authority in adopting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11160, subd. 10(E), which exempted employees from a second meal break requirement who were covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the exemption was invalid.
|
|||||
| In re J.N., F048751,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (f), in denying reunification services to a mother who was incarcerated when her child was two years old and who had not seen him for nine years; a conclusion that her request for telephone visitation would not be in the child's best interest was reasonable.
|
|||||
| In re S.C., C046784,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile dependency petition alleging under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (d), that minor was sexually molested by her stepfather and that her mother knew but did not take any appropriate action to protect her was properly sustained because petition set forth specific factual allegations that supported juvenile court jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| People v. Bobbit, C049287,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal in which he challenged the trial court's decision to sentence him to the maximum term permitted under a plea agreement was dismissed, where the trial court did not grant a certificate of probable cause as required by Pen. Code, § 1237.5.
|
|||||
| California State Automobile Assn. v. City of Palo Alto, H027980,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a sewage backup into a home was caused by a blockage in a city's sewer main, the city was liable under a theory of inverse condemnation pursuant to Cal. Const., art. I, § 19, because the sewer main failed to function as it was intended; proof of how or why the blockage occurred was not necessary to establish the city's liability.
|
|||||
| People v. Huggins, S037006,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a prosecutor satisfactorily explained peremptory challenges to African-American jurors at the penalty phase of a capital trial. Although there were similarities between accepted and rejected jurors, the rejected jurors were dissimilar in that the prosecutor believed they were unlikely to impose the death penalty.
|
|||||
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. |
