|
|
| |
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 - May 16, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
In re Ali A., C049808,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although juvenile court lacked discretion to set a maximum term of physical confinement when it committed a minor to custody of his parents subject to probationary supervision, rather than to state youth authority's custody, because Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 726, subd. (c), did not apply, reversal was not required because minor was not prejudiced.
|
|
| |
Lazan v. County of Riverside, E038572,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where substantial evidence supported the finding that a county, by its words and actions, demonstrated that it believed that a county employee was incapable of performing her job duties as a deputy sheriff, the county was required to apply for disability retirement on the employee's behalf pursuant to Gov. Code, ? 21153.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Ranger Ins. Co., G035387,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although surety stated that the form of an undertaking should have been based on Pen. Code, ? 1552.1, which authorized bail for fugitives, there was no special form dictated by statute for a bond in fugitive proceedings. Under Pen. Code, ? 1553, recovery on bond issued for fugitive was to be had on same grounds as bonds in all other proceedings.
|
|
| |
Slintak v. Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd., B182875,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that the power of sale in a trust deed had expired under the 10-year limitations period; the filing of a lis pendens within the time limits extended the period under Civ. Code, ? 880.260, and because less than 10 years had elapsed from the filing of the lis pendens, the power of sale in the trust deed had not expired.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback