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!

   State Courts - California - April 10, 2007

  
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.

Search Cases for Free

  
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.

Search Cases for Free

  
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.

Search Cases for Free

  
People v. Sledge (William Lamont), S148843, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
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.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top