 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cequel III Communications I, LLC v. Local Agency Formation Com. of Nevada County, C052238,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislature's grant of authority in Pub. Util. Code, § 16461 for a public utility district (PUD) to acquire, construct, own, and operate works for supplying its inhabitants with other means of communication authorized PUD to supply broadband services, including cable television, to its inhabitants; cable television was a means of communication.
|
|||||
| Hoschler v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist., C050940,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Service by certified mail of a notice of nonrenewal upon a probationary teacher, which was not received until after the statutory March 15 deadline provided in Ed. Code, § 44929.21, subd. (b), did not constitute sufficient compliance with the notice requirement of § 44929.21, subd. (b), because personal notice was required.
|
|||||
| In re Prescott, D047936,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, requiring reversal, because defense counsel was advocating against defendant's cause when counsel filed a report with trial court disclosing confidential attorney-client communications and setting forth reasons why there was no basis for withdrawal of defendant's guilty plea.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc., B190805,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a former employee refused to cooperate with employer's discovery with respect to his complaint against the employer, trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions on employee pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d), and in imposing a terminating sanction by dismissing his complaint against the employer.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzalez, No. B189988,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure of a sex offender to file a change of address was properly charged as a felony in accordance with Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (g)(2), because the underlying offense requiring registration was a felony; § 290, subd. (g)(9), did not give a trial court discretion to treat any § 290 violation as either a felony or a misdemeanor.
|
|||||
| People v. Herndon, B183711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Forcibly taking defendant's fingerprints during trial but outside presence of jury violated the Due Process Clause, but reversal was not required because any prejudice to the defense that might have resulted from the forcible fingerprinting was offset by the prejudice that defendant caused himself by bringing his resistance to the jury's attention.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
