 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist., D047040,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Severely autistic minors did not have a claim under California's Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, Civ. Code, § 51.7, against their preschool instructor because there was no evidence that the instructor took the alleged abusive actions against the minors because he was biased against or had an animus against disabled children.
|
|||||
| Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database Inc., B193613,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Listing of film production credits on Web site was an act in furtherance of the right of free speech protected under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP, statute because the issue was the content of the site, the listings were not commercial speech, the film at issue was a topic of widespread public interest, and the site was a public forum.
|
|||||
| L&B Real Estate v. Housing Authority of County of Los Angeles, B189740,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly quieted title in a county housing authority after property belonging to the authority was mistakenly sold at a tax sale; because the property was exempt from taxation under Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 3, subd. (b), the tax deed purporting to convey the property for nonpayment of taxes was void.
|
|||||
| People v. Anderson, C047502, C048283,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Banks, G036873,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right to jury trial was violated by imposition of five-year upper term for robbery based on defendant's participation in the planning and commission of the crimes because jury did not return findings on those factors. Upper term could, however, have been based solely on prior convictions and other recidivist-related factors without a jury finding.
|
|||||
| People v. Cantor, G036838,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled under the Fourth Amendment to suppress evidence of cocaine found when a police officer, during a traffic stop, used a screwdriver to remove a panel from a small mechanical device that he found in defendant's trunk; although defendant consented to a quick search of his car, the search exceeded the scope of defendant's consent.
|
|||||
| People v. Gastello, F050325,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant committed the crime of bringing drugs into jail, where defendant, who was driven to jail in custody, did nothing that could be regarded as the affirmative act of bringing something into jail. Although he omitted to confess to having the drugs, that was not an affirmative act.
|
|||||
| Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno, F049481,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's approval of new commercial development on vacant land violated CEQA because city failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures to lessen environmental impacts of project. City's review process failed to inform public of consequences of environmental decisions because statement of overriding considerations engaged in serious misrepresentation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
