 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property & Business Improvement Dist., B183545,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In compliance with Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (a), city adequately distinguished between special and general benefits in creating special assessment district. Special benefits conferred were not mere effects of the services funded by the assessments. Rather, services themselves constituted special benefits to all of the assessed parcels.
|
|||||
| In re Richard G., No. B209512,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant juvenile argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted because the evidence was insufficient to support a detention and cursory search for weapons, defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because a reliable anonymous telephone report supplied the basis for the detention.
|
|||||
| Loeffler v. Target Corp., B199287,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs contended a retailer was not entitled to collect sales tax reimbursement on take-out purchases of hot coffee because sales tax was allegedly not due on such purchases, Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 32, barred plaintiffs' action. Plaintiffs had no standing to seek a sales tax refund.
|
|||||
| People v. Zambia, B207812,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of pandering, Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(2), even though the person encouraged was an undercover officer, because the fact that the officer had no intention of prostituting herself on behalf of defendant did not mean that defendant could be convicted of nothing more than the inchoate offense of attempt.
|
|||||
| In re K.B., E046005,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a parental rights termination case involving Indian children, a social services agency provided the mother with the resources necessary to achieve the goals of her case plan. This constituted "active efforts" within the meaning of the ICWA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
