 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Ashlie M., C058043, C058513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation condition requiring payment of restitution under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 730.6, for pedestrian's burial/cremation expenses was properly imposed against juvenile defendant where substantial evidence supported finding that juvenile's unlawful conduct under Veh. Code, ¿ 12500, subd. (a), was a substantial factor in the pedestrian's death.
|
|||||
| In re K.F., H032977,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court wrongly ordered defendant minor to pay restitution under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 730.6, for ambulance the victim's services because the document apparently reflecting value of ambulance services provided was not substantial evidence that victim incurred debt or loss in any amount but rather explicitly showed an incurred loss of zero.
|
|||||
| Neman v. Commercial Capital Bank, B208164,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff filed a timely claim with FDIC, his appeal could not be dismissed for failure to comply with administrative review process of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. ¿ 1821(d); he could not pursue administrative remedies at any time suit was pending in trial court, as judgment was entered five months before FDIC was appointed as receiver of bank he sued.
|
|||||
| People v. Frazier, C057684,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a jury found true a sentencing enhancement allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, Pen. Code, ¿ 12022.7, subd. (a), sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that one of two dogs obeyed defendant's command to attack and maul the victim.
|
|||||
| People v. Henning, C058105,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the portion of CALCRIM No. 1804 requiring the prosecution to show corroboration by proving that the false pretense was accompanied by either a writing or false token was legally incorrect, its use was harmless error because the testimony of defendant's victims and other evidence gave ample corroboration under Pen. Code, ¿ 532, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| People v. Watts, C056491,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Self-representation was properly denied because defendant could not comply with rules of procedure and courtroom protocol. Defendant asked to represent himself whenever the trial court did not rule as he desired, quickly withdrew the requests, and continuously interrupted the trial court's conversations with counsel.
|
|||||
| Sparks v. Kern County Bd. of Supervisors, F055455,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a county sheriff was required to, but did not, comply with the claim presentation requirements of the California Government Claims Act, the sheriff's claim for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs incurred in defending an action brought against him by the county was barred.
|
|||||
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. |
