 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Marriage of David & Martha M., B177632,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Welf. & Inst. Code, § 302, subd. (d), compelled family court to find a significant change of circumstances and that modification of father's visitation rights was in the best interests of child before it could modify juvenile court's exit order. However, because family court applied only best interests standard, it made a clear legal error.
|
|||||
| Kim v. Yi, B184483,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs in wrongful death action were not entitled to have jury apportion proceeds of the settlement of the wrongful death action because Code Civ. Proc., § 377.61, provided that the trial court had to apportion the award. Issue raised by plaintiffs' complaint was equitable and a special proceeding, for which there was no right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Avila, S045982,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in excusing for cause prospective jurors based solely on their written answers to a jury questionnaire concerning their views on the death penalty. The jurors' answers were sufficiently unambiguous to allow the trial court to identify disqualifying biases on the basis of their written responses alone.
|
|||||
| People v. King, S129052,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for illegally possessing a short-barreled rifle in violation of Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1), where defendant knew of the rifle's shortness, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that defendant's knowledge of the rifle's illegal characteristic was an element of the crime charged was harmless error.
|
|||||
| People v. McSherry, B181229,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for an attempt to molest or annoy a child under the age of 18 years was reversed because his conduct constituted a misdemeanor violation of Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (a), absent his prior conviction of lewd act, and prosecution of the offense was not commenced within one year as required by Pen. Code, § 802, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Tien v. Superior Court, B187171,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a putative class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations, the employer was not entitled to obtain discovery of the identities of all putative class members who contacted the employees' counsel in response to a neutral letter; such discovery would violate the class members' privacy rights under Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
