|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - April 18, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, A107803,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A decision to strike down race and gender preferences was remanded, even though Cal. Const., art. I, ? 31, validly prohibited such preferences, because trial court failed to address whether the particular ordinance was mandated by Fourteenth Amendment as a narrowly tailored program to remedy ongoing, pervasive discrimination in public contracting.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
McKinnon v. Otis Elevator Co., C051752,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Subrogation settlement between an employer and a manufacturer did not bar an injured employee's action against the manufacturer because the notice and consent requirements of Lab. Code, ?? 3853, 3859, 3860, subd. (a), were not met and the manufacturer, prior to settlement, was aware of the possibility of the employee's claim for damages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Montoya, D049602, D049635,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a trial for sexual assault of a child, counsel was not rendered ineffective by failing to pursue a hearing under Evid. Code, ?? 700, 701, on the victim's competency to testify because counsel could have reasonably believed that the victim, who was 12 years old at time of trial, was able to coherently communicate and would not be disqualified.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Ybarra, F047855,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the record implicitly showed a belief by trial court and counsel alike that a life without possibility of parole term was mandatory if a special circumstance were not stricken, resentencing in light of factors in Pen. Code, ? 190.3, and circumstances in aggravation and mitigation in Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421 and 4.23, was imperative.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback