 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brawley v. J.C. Interiors, Inc., F050279, F051448,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Builder's damages for an owner's breach of a construction contract had to be offset, in applying Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 877, with a smaller amount of damages caused by the builder's own breach; thus, the owner could receive settlement credit for the net amount he would have had to pay the builder and was not entitled to a judgment against the builder.
|
|||||
| County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, H031540,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In public nuisance abatement action that was brought by public entities against lead paint manufacturers, private counsel were not barred from assisting public entities under contingency fee arrangement, where there was no evidence private counsel had engaged in conduct that invaded sphere of control exercised by public entities' in-house counsel.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Lucio, G039072,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Best interest standard set forth in Fam. Code, ¿ 3040, subd. (b), not the changed circumstances rule, applied to a father's request for a change in his visitation schedule; hence, a trial court erred in dismissing the father's second order to show cause (OSC) by reason of his failure to allege changed circumstances since the first OSC was denied.
|
|||||
| People v. Garelick, H030976,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by failing to instruct jury that it must find as preliminary fact that defendant possessed or controlled 118 images of possible child pornography found on his computer with specific intent or mental state to commit crime of possession of child pornography before it could consider images under Evid. Code, ¿ 1101, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| People v. Lessie, D050019,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, defendant, who was a minor at the time he made statements during two police interviews, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights under a totality of the circumstances test and did not invoke them by requesting to speak to his father during the first interview. Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| People v. Navarro, F052604,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of defendant who had entered a no contest plea in a negotiated agreement at entry of plea proceedings, which challenged a 10-year term imposed on a criminal street gang allegation, was dismissed pursuant to Pen. Code, ¿ 1237.5, and former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d), par. (1), because he failed to secure a certificate of probable cause.
|
|||||
| In re Alice M., H031794,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating mother's parental rights over her child and selecting adoption as permanent plan pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 366.26, was error; trial court had reason to know that child might be an Indian child, requiring notice pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 224.2, but notices sent to three tribes did not comply fully with ICWA.
|
|||||
| Salma v. Capon, A115057,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a real estate dispute, a seller was entitled to strike a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage because his acts of recording a notice of rescission, contacting the police department and the district attorney, and recording a notice of lis pendens were protected activity under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 425.16, subd. (e).
|
|||||
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. |
