 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B194844,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a putative class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations, an opt-out notice was adequate to protect privacy rights of potential class members; they reasonably might be expected to want contact information disclosed to a class action plaintiff who sought unpaid wages, and such disclosure was neither unduly personal nor overly intrusive.
|
|||||
| Demps v. San Francisco Housing Authority, A112815,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in following prior case's holding that a trial judge did not need to rule on each evidentiary objection because judge's failure to rule on properly presented objections resulted in their being impliedly overruled under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d), effect of which was that the objected-to evidence was included in the record.
|
|||||
| In re Alexander L., G036595,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that a purported gang was a criminal street gang under Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (f), was not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no foundation for testimony that a gang expert knew of involvement in crimes. Further, two convictions of purported members, without more, did not establish primary activities under statute.
|
|||||
| In re Imran Q., B188613,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant minor admitted to one count of hit and run with an injury and one count of hit and run with property damage, juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when, pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, it ordered defendant to pay additional restitution for legal fees and costs victim incurred to collect restitution.
|
|||||
| People v. Cage, S127344,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of an assault victim's statement to a deputy in a hospital emergency room should have been excluded under the Confrontation Clause because it was made in response to focused police questioning whose primary purpose was to investigate the circumstances of the crime. The error was harmless, however, because the evidence was cumulative.
|
|||||
| People v. Weaver, D047993,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request for probation following her conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a), because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that victims were vulnerable victims of defendant's crime within meaning of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414(a)(3).
|
|||||
| Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., A110120, A111606,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit against retailer for allegedly denying meal and rest breaks to employees, retailer waived right to file belated motion to seal records under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551; retailer's conduct was so inconsistent with intent to enforce its rights to obtain sealed records as to induce reasonable belief that it had relinquished such right.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
