 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Vanessa M., A109479,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a juvenile dependency proceeding under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, a father's due process rights were violated because the trial court barred the father's testimony as a sanction for prior failures to appear. Error was not harmless because the testimony could have been useful on vigorously disputed issues, such as father's current drug use.
|
|||||
| Mayes v. Bryan, B172533,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action, the record showed that the trial court found that the defense had requested a modification to BAJI No. 3.76's substantial factor instruction. Thus, the defense invited any error in the substantial factor instruction.
|
|||||
| People v. Shabtay, B179520,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant should only have been convicted of one violation of Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (b), for acquiring access cards in names of four or more persons within a three month period because there could only be only one violation of the statute within any consecutive 12-month period. Thus, one of two § 484e, subd. (b), convictions had to be reversed.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilson, D046198,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of felony child endangerment under Pen. Code, § 273a, because she had forced her 10-year-old son go through an open window of a neighbor's locked house to facilitate her burglary of the residence, which was a highly dangerous undertaking that exposed the child to a number of serious physical dangers.
|
|||||
| Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker, B175450,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pesticide manufacturers were entitled to a declaratory judgment construing former Food & Agr. Code, § 12811.5, to mean that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation could not use or consider their original data in support of a subsequent application for pesticide product registration without their consent to such use or consideration.
|
|||||
| People v. Lai, B165662,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a welfare fraud case, the trial court should not have imposed a non-stayed two-year enhancement under Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2), because Pen. Code, § 186.11, subd. (a)(3), provided for a single consecutive term calculated by reference to Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a), but not an additional term under § 12022.6, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| People v. Thimmes, H028897,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a plea bargain case, counsel was rendered ineffective by failing to determine that defendant could not have been warned that his 1999 conviction under Pen. Code, § 422, would count as a strike. Absent the presumption that he was warned, the trial court might not have denied defendant's motion to strike the prior criminal threat conviction.
|
|||||
| Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc., B179798,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting of motion for judgment on pleading, Code Civ. Proc., § 438, against real estate broker was proper; broker did not plead wrongful conduct in support of its interference with prospective economic advantage claim because allegations of other broker's violation of realtor association's rules and Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, were inadequate.
|
|||||
| Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, B179975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
