|
|
| |
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 28 - May 1, 2006
|
| |
Hayes v. State Dept. of Developmental Services, C049231,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Department of General Services, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), was not a necessary or indispensable party under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 4500 et seq., on a petition by an autistic minor challenging the termination of funding for the educational portion of his "In-Home Discrete Trial Program." The petition should not have been dismissed.
|
|
| |
In re Anthony C., C048529,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Extension of defendant's commitment to California Youth Authority was error, as evidence was insufficient to prove he had serious difficulty controlling his sexually deviant behavior. Because double jeopardy applied to trial under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 1801.5, his retrial was barred by Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 1803, and he had to be released.
|
|
| |
In re Lino B., C050274, C050803,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because, in a negotiated disposition, minor knowingly and willingly accepted probation period exceeding statutory maximum allowed by Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 725, subd. (a), in exchange for an admission to reduced charge and dismissal of second charge, he was estopped from asserting his claim that juvenile court improperly imposed nine-month term.
|
|
| |
Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones, F039797 & F040179,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case involving a billing dispute between an insurer and its insured, the renewal of a judgment applied for by the insured, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ? 683.130, was vacated by operation of law upon issuance of a remittitur in an appeal that reversed the underlying judgment in favor of the insured.
|
|
| |
Moran v. Department of Motor Vehicles, G035836,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Mandate did not lie in an owner's action seeking to compel the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), to renew the registration of a vehicle without a salvage certificate; no ministerial duty existed because Veh. Code, ? 11515, subd. (b), did not authorize the DMV to reconsider the total loss salvage vehicle determination by the insurer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Manila, F046611,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sentencing enhancement under Pen. Code, ? 12022, subd. (c), had to be stayed pursuant to Pen. Code, ? 654, because defendant's concurrent sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and his consecutive sentence for an enhancement for being armed in commission of cocaine possession offense were for the same criminal act.
|
|
| |
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, No. B188909,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Documents generated by a quality assurance committee for a county's jail mental health services agency were exempt from disclosure in an action arising from the suicide of a jail inmate because they met the criteria of Evid. Code, ?? 1157, 1157.6, for documents generated by peer review bodies and correctional treatment quality assurance committees.
|
|
| |
In re Kerry K., C050968,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although minor was entitled to be released from detention under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1486(a)(1), once juvenile court continued his case more than seven days from the date to which the matter had been continued at his request, because minor was released subsequent to the filing of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petition was denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback