 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conservatorship of Christopher A., D047022,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stipulated judgment adopted pursuant to the California Lanterman-Petris-Short Act after no formal hearing was held on the issues of placement, disabilities, and powers of the conservator was reversed, where the court failed to consult with the conservatee to instruct him on consequences of the stipulation and obtain his express consent to it.
|
|||||
| Daniel V. v. Superior Court, C050566, C051071,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In juvenile proceedings under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, minors' peremptory challenges to the assigned judge were timely under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, because purported all-purposes assignments in notices of petition issued by the clerk did not trigger the time demands of § 170.6. A judicial order or written local court rule was required.
|
|||||
| Jonkey v. Carignan Construction Co., No. B178385,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action by an injured construction worker, substantial evidence supported a finding that a masonry company, although negligent, did not cause the worker's injury when a plank from its scaffolding fell on his foot. The factual findings were not inconsistent if the jury decided that the company was only negligent on a failure to warn theory.
|
|||||
| Camacho v. Automobile Club of Southern California, B180134,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which uninsured motorist sued collection agency and insurers for violating Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, motorist was not injured by practice of attempting to collect monies allegedly owed to insurers. Because motorist was liable for damages arising from car accident, it did not violate his rights to attempt to collect those damages.
|
|||||
| People v. Linder, C048803,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant on multiple counts of lewd and lascivious conduct on children under the age of 14, defendant was not deprived of his right to a jury by an instruction that the State could prove extension of the statute of limitations for two of the counts under Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (g), by a preponderance of the evidence standard.
|
|||||
| Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., C045386,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Yeo Lai Sah Buddist Monastery & Zen Temple of America v. Nelidove, C047826,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 4, 2006, Decided
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. |
