 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adoption of Arthur M., G037706,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unwed father did not have a Fourteenth Amendment right to veto an adoption because he did not promptly assume his parental responsibilities. The mother testified that he did not provide any support at all during the pregnancy, that he badgered her relentlessly about having an abortion, and that he verbally abused her when she steadfastly refused.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Schlafly, H029918,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In calculating child support, a trial court properly applied the earning capacity doctrine of Fam. Code, § 4058, subd. (b), in imputing income to a father who owned a stock market portfolio that generated a low rate of return because he could have earned more by investing in bonds.
|
|||||
| People v. Macklem, D046806,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements he made in a detention facility during an interview with a detective about his assault of an inmate. A reasonable person in defendant's position would have realized that he could end the questioning and leave before the end of the interview.
|
|||||
| San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, F050232,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an environmental impact report for a mining project discussed existing production levels but did not address the effects of peak production, it failed to adequately characterize the project and was insufficient under Pub. Resources Code, § 21065, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15124, 15378, as an informational document.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
