 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Romero, D047175,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, in light of defendant's reliance on self-defense, the victim's statements to a third party about threats defendant made were relevant and clearly admissible under Evid. Code, § 1250, and did not interfere with defendant's right of confrontation.
|
|||||
| Sierra Club v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, A113774,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of challenge to state agency's decision to approve mitigated negative declaration and issue timber conversion permit was error where there was substantial evidence to support fair argument that conversion project, as mitigated, could have significant effect on environment, thus requiring preparation of EIR under Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.
|
|||||
| Stonelight Tile, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., H029043,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a continuous injury trigger case involving dust pollution, because potential coverage from solvent liability insurers was not exhausted in settlements, there was other insurance available within the meaning of Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(9), and the California Insurance Guarantee Association was not responsible for an insolvent insurer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
