|
| |
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 |
| |
|