 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clark v. Superior Court, No. B212512,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in granting an insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings in senior citizens' class action that alleged that the insurer utilized deceptive business practices in violation of California's UCL because Civ. Code, ¿ 3345's enhanced remedy was available in a private action by senior citizens seeking restitution under the UCL.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Lund, G040863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A valid transmutation of ex-husband's separate property occurred where he made an express declaration in writing of his unambiguous intention to transmute all of his separate property as of the date he executed an agreement with his then-wife, pursuant to Fam. Code, ¿ 852, subd. (a); thus, trial court erred in finding the agreement to be ambiguous.
|
|||||
| Lewis C. Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Lynx Iron Corp., F055815,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in setting aside contractor's voluntary dismissal of its action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 581, where the dismissal was timely; there had been no ruling or other indication by court regarding merits of case, nor was there any procedural dereliction on contractor's part that would make judgment in defendants' favor inevitable.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., B203777,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In complex class litigation arising from unsolicited faxes, the parties' could not create appellate review by stipulating that the trial court would have granted summary judgment, based upon its ruling on threshold issues, because there was nothing before the reviewing court that remotely complied with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 437c.
|
|||||
| People v. Paysinger, C059448,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's use of CALCRIM No. 372 in a robbery case did not undermine the presumption of innocence or tend to relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the disputed issue was defendant's participation and not whether a crime was committed, and the instruction was not inconsistent with Pen. Code, ¿ 1127c.
|
|||||
| People v. Sisneros, B205535,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inferences arising from the conduct of a person who refused to be sworn and to submit to questioning reasonably supported a gang expert's testimony under Evid. Code, ¿ 600, subd. (b), on a gang's reputation for witness intimidation, which was relevant and admissible under Evid. Code, ¿¿ 210, 350, as to witness credibility and gang allegations.
|
|||||
| Cohen v. Brown, B206223,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Bryant, B205295,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Equal protection principles required that defendant, who had been found incompetent in probation revocation proceedings, be awarded Pen. Code, ¿ 4019, conduct credits from the date when the hospital staff determined that he had been restored to competency, although a Pen. Code, ¿ 1372, subd. (a)(1), certification was executed two months later.
|
|||||
| People v. Dean, E041513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was recommitted as sexually violent predator, there was no reversible error in allowing the State's experts to testify to inadmissible hearsay. Other than testimony regarding a state hospital's records and other institutional records, facts testified to by experts did not bring before jury incompetent hearsay evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
