 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., B164398, B169083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a cigarette manufacturer's extremely reprehensible conduct justified a punitive damages award to a smoker of $ 28 million, 33 times greater than the compensatory damages award of $ 850,000. The manufacturer's course of misconduct included manipulation of the narcotic effect of nicotine in cigarettes.
|
|||||
| Coffin v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., D047218,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Gov. Code, § 11504, a liquor license applicant bore the burden of proof regarding its eligibility for a liquor license from the start of the application process until the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control made a final determination.
|
|||||
| Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, B168730,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation's elections, the trial court erred in determining the amount of an attorney fee award under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, when it prematurely set the fee award and deemed the amount reasonable even before it received a detailed motion for supplemental attorney fees.
|
|||||
| People v. Corban, A110662, A112528,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter after her child died because defendant had left him in a locked car with the windows closed on a hot day, the State had the discretion to charge defendant with a great bodily injury enhancement under either Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (d), or Pen. Code, § 12022.95.
|
|||||
| People v. Sanchez, B180113,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a second-degree murder case arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by defendant's driving at extremely high speed while intoxicated, Pen. Code, § 22, subd. (b), did not lower the prosecution's burden of proof or prevent defendant from presenting relevant evidence; thus, excluding voluntary intoxication evidence did not violate due process.
|
|||||
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. |
