 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Vincent G., C055068,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certain conditions of a minor's probation, including prohibitions against associating with other known gang member and possessing gang clothing and materials, had to be modified to include element of minor's personal knowledge, as he could engage in one of prohibited activities with someone known to police but not known to him to be a gang member.
|
|||||
| Little Co. of Mary Hospital v. Superior Court, B204061,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court in elder abuse case erred in concluding that pretrial mechanism in Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 425.14, regarding punitive damages when health care provider was a religious corporation did not apply, writ of mandate was issued directing trial court to vacate its order denying religious corporation's motion to strike punitive damage claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Jacinto, A117076,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not establish a deprivation of his right to compulsory process and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment, arising from the release of a jailed witness to the immigration authorities for deportation, without showing that the prosecution knew he would have received material assistance from the testimony of the deported witness.
|
|||||
| People v. Litmon, H031348,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Excessive pretrial delay in a sexually violent predator (SVP) proceeding, which resulted in a year in custody after a mistrial without a determination under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 6604, of continuing SVP status, violated procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; a retroactive order of indeterminate commitment was also error.
|
|||||
| People v. Soukomlane, F052781,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ordering that defendant be shackled based on emotional outbursts violated due process because defendant had engaged in no physical altercation or lashing out. It also violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when defendant, who was self-representing, was removed from the courtroom during prosecutor's examination of a key witness.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California, B194066,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration disclosure in a health insurance enrollment form was not prominently displayed and did not comply with Health & Saf. Code, ¿ 1363.1, subd. (c), because almost all of the provision, except for one sentence, was limited to issues of medical malpractice; the provision did not clearly indicate that it applied to other disputes.
|
|||||
| Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc., D051011,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners had no direct interest justifying permissive intervention under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 387, subd. (a), in litigation between an insurer and its former insureds regarding environmental contaminants on the property because they were not in privity of contract with the insurer, were not additional insureds, and were not judgment creditors.
|
|||||
| State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan, A115491, A115663,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Low-income housing developer was not required under Lab. Code, ¿ 1771, to pay prevailing wages to its construction workers because its low-income housing tax credits were not public funds; they did not amount to payment of money under Lab. Code, ¿ 1720, subd. (b)(1), or a transfer for less than fair market value under ¿ 1720, subd. (b)(3).
|
|||||
| State Dept. of Social Services v. Superior Court, C057419,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a proceeding under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 366.26, subd. (n), court properly considered post-removal evidence in finding that it was in minors' best interests to return to home of their prospective adoptive parents. Evidence included that parents had educated themselves about corporal punishment and agreed that it was not okay to hit children.
|
|||||
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. |
