 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, D047891,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's denial of further reunification services was error, even though the parents had not eliminated their problems after 18 months of services, because it could not reasonably be found, as required by the second prong of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(10), that the parents had not made reasonable effort to treat problems.
|
|||||
| Margaret W. v. Kelley R., A110054,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother of teenager's sleepover host had no duty to take burdensome steps to prevent a conceivable rape from happening; the rape was not foreseeable under a heightened foreseeability standard because the mother did not know who the teenager was with when she left her house and did not know that the boys had a propensity to sexually assault girls.
|
|||||
| People v. Hernandez, B183053,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was deprived of state and constitutional rights to defend with counsel of his choice when trial court denied his request to discharge retained counsel because court utilized wrong standard by holding Marsden hearing, which was inappropriate for considering complaints against retained counsel, and did not adequately address issue of delay.
|
|||||
| People v. Reynolds, E036242,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a 2003 proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, defendant's conviction resulting from a 1980 plea of no contest was properly used as a qualifying prior conviction because 2005 case law established that Pen. Code, § 1016, former clause (3), did not bar the use of pre-1983 no contest pleas. That case law applied retroactively.
|
|||||
| Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego, D046360,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported a city's determination that the proposed development of a 14-story residential building in a densely populated area across a street from a park was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a), as an urban in-fill development project.
|
|||||
| Mukthar v. Latin American Security Service, B183968,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a convenience store cashier sued a security service company for its alleged failure to prevent an attack on him by a patron, under the negligent undertaking doctrine, it was a question of fact whether the cashier's injuries were caused by the company's negligence in not having a guard on the premises at the time of the assault.
|
|||||
| People v. Chatman, S032509,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported a jury's findings under Pen. Code, §§ 189, 190.3, that a murder defendant tortured the victim. Relevant evidence included that defendant inflicted over four dozen stab wounds, which were not immediately fatal but bled significantly, that he said killing felt good, and that his actions did not seem frenzied, as claimed.
|
|||||
| People v. Shazier, H028674,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment finding defendant to be a sexually violent predator within meaning of Sexually Violent Predators Act was reversed, where prosecutor committed misconduct in rebuttal argument by informing jury of consequences of a true finding, and it was reasonably probable that result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
