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.
	State Courts - California - May 28, 2009
	People v. Gutierrez, F055925, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2009, Filed View this case - free   Overview: In trial for battery against a custodial officer under Pen. Code, ¿ 243.1, CALCRIM No. 2671 erroneously limited authorization to defend against excessive force to a restraint situation. Reversal was not required because record showed that a deputy attempted to restrain defendant at all times during defendant's violent defiance of lawful authority. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	People v. Vasilyan, B205679, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 28, 2009, Filed View this case - free   Overview: In a hate crimes case, court vacated defendant's 1994 nolo contendere plea to charges under Pen. Code, ¿ 422.7, because ¿ 422.7, did not identify a substantive crime but rather elevated certain crimes from misdemeanors to felonies, which made ¿ 422.7 a penalty provision. As there was no crime, the judgment was void and subject to collateral attack. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Rodriguez v. Henard, F055200, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2009, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Nonreceipt of a request for entry of default and default judgment, allegedly caused by an incorrect zip code as set forth on the affidavits of mailing, did not merit relief from default under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 473, because notice was given by telephone and Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 587, provided that nonreceipt of the request was not a ground for relief. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	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.