|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - March 28, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re S.W., F051032,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a California parental rights termination case, jurisdiction was not established in Nebraska under Fam. Code, ¿ 3421, subd. (a)(1), where mother had been staying at the California home of her boyfriend's mother for several months, she had been living out of a van while her children lived in the residence, and she had sought welfare in California.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Krohn, G036762,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: For purposes of an investigative detention, an officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was drinking alcohol in a public place because the purported drinking occurred inside a gated apartment complex. The complex, with a guarded electric gate that closed automatically, was not public even if the gate was periodically propped open.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Stewart v. Seward, B190103,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a suit for breach of a promise to execute a will was governed by Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 366.3, which provided that one-year limitation period applied to a promise or agreement with a decedent as to distribution from an estate and that the period could not be tolled or extended, filing suit more than one year after decedent's death was untimely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|