 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Hairston, C057504,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted for three misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest under Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), despite his argument that the multiple counts arose from a single, nonviolent act, because he resisted arrest by three different peace officers and could be convicted for each peace officer that he resisted.
|
|||||
| People v. Robertson, C058306,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly imposed a restitution fine against defendant pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b), with a 10 percent administrative fee, because § 1202.4, subd. (l), clearly and unambiguously provided for a 10 percent administrative fee to be imposed on any "restitution fine" ordered pursuant to § 1202.4, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Supreme Court concluded that Proposition 8, which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment, not an impermissible revision, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under an "inalienable rights" theory.
|
|||||
| Vaughn v. LJ Internat., Inc., B208192,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to the internal affairs doctrine in Corp. Code, § 2116, the requirement in § 184C of the British Virgin Islands Business Companies Act of 2004 to obtain court approval to file a derivative action governed a shareholder's standing to bring derivative claims against a British Virgin Islands corporation and its directors in California.
|
|||||
| Yamaha v. Superior Court, G041255,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Service on a Japanese corporation through its American subsidiary's agent for service of process did not implicate the Hague Service Convention because California law did not require service abroad but allowed service under Corp. Code, § 2110, on a foreign corporation's California general manager, which could be a sales agent in regular contact.
|
|||||
| In re N.M., C056832,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not err in finding there was good cause to deviate from the preference of an Indian tribe, an expert on the Indian Child Welfare Act, and a social services agency and to place a minor with a nonrelative pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(vi)(II), where substantial evidence supported that determination.
|
|||||
| Jazayeri v. Mao, B195083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Altered poultry condemnation certificates were not hearsay under Evid. Code, § 1200, because they were offered not for their truth but as direct evidence of fraudulent statements. The unaltered documents were admissible as official records under Evid. Code, § 1280, based on an inspector's testimony showing personal knowledge of their preparation.
|
|||||
| Lima v. Vous, B201786,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Past medical benefits had to be distinguished from other categories of damage in a medical malpractice settlement when ruling on a motion to extinguish part of a Medicaid lien; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(25), 1396k(b), 1396p allowed recovery of medical costs only, and Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14124.76, subd. (a), contemplated a reasonable allocation.
|
|||||
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. |
