 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Garibay v. Hemmat, B194919,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor being sued for medical malpractice did not meet his burden of production of evidence for summary judgment where his medical expert witness based his opinion on facts derived from his review of hospital and medical records, which were not properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to hearsay rule, Evid. Code, § 1271.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Montgomery & Harwood, C055095,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of whether a dispute as to the division of proceeds from the sale of the family residence was bona fide, there was no evidence that the husband communicated to the wife his intent that a sum he paid to her was in full satisfaction of his debt to her under the parties' judgment of dissolution; hence, there was no accord and satisfaction.
|
|||||
| Ortega v. Sacramento County Dept. of Health & Human Services, C054262,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which minor sued child protective services agency after minor was returned to her father, who stabbed minor four days after her return, defendants were immune from liability pursuant to Gov. Code, § 820.2. Immunity applied to a 48-hour investigation conducted by social worker, even though she did so on woefully inadequate information.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, E042427,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was improperly convicted on two counts of forgery under Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d), based on forging two signatures on the same instrument because § 470, subd. (d), was violated each time a person made and/or passed a forged item, no matter how many forged signatures were on the item.
|
|||||
| People v. Szadziewicz, B191683,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for aggravated mayhem, substantial evidence supported a finding that defendant had the specific intent to maim the victim because the victim testified that defendant repeatedly slashed his face while holding him down. Life sentences for the very serious mayhem and attempted murder offenses did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, No. B199059,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly gave jury CALCRIM No. 416, uncharged conspiracy instruction, during defendant's trial for selling cocaine base, as the instruction was constitutional and did not impermissibly direct jurors to find that conspiracy existed, reduce burden of proof, or violate defendant's constitutional rights to jury trial and due process of law.
|
|||||
| Tosi v. County of Fresno, F053706,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county's ordinances pertaining to scrap metal dealers impermissibly conflicted with state law and were preempted because the ordinances regulated in a more restrictive manner the very conduct regulated in state law.
|
|||||
| Garza v. Asbestos Corp., A116523, A119262,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., D049471,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juror was entitled to change his vote at polling, and other jurors' declarations were not admissible under Evid. Code, § 1150, subd. (a), to inquire into his earlier vote; a special verdict allocating liability was therefore defective because only eight votes supported it, in violation of Cal. Const., art. I, § 16, and Code Civ. Proc., § 618.
|
|||||
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. |
