 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Lesly G., B202299,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court violated due process when it failed to hold a hearing on mother's Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, petition for modification after ruling that best interest of mother's child might be promoted by mother's proposed order and petition stated change of circumstances or new evidence, and notifying her that a hearing would take place.
|
|||||
| People v. Mohammed, H030980,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no evidence of a written agreement conforming to Pen. Code, § 1318, produced at defendant's trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict her of willful failure to appear while out on her own recognizance, in violation of Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| In re Miranda, S058528 & S060781,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death sentence was reversed because, in the penalty phase, the State failed to disclose material favorable evidence as required by the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically, a letter detailing an admission by a State's witness that a prior killing was committed by the witness, not the accused. The prior killing was the only evidence in aggravation.
|
|||||
| People v. Albillar, No. B194358,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were not entitled to severance of a Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a), gang charge from charges of rape and sexual penetration while acting in concert because the gang evidence would have been cross-admissible, under Evid. Code, § 1101, in separate trials to show why the victim delayed in reporting the crime and to prove concerted action.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, S052520,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding a prosecution witness was entitled to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination where it was not "perfectly clear" the witness's answers could not possibly have tendency to incriminate him; thus, the court correctly found the witness was unavailable within the terms of Evid. Code, §§ 240, subd. (a)(1), 1291.
|
|||||
| Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith, G039077,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a company sued its former employee for breach of contract, the former employee was the party prevailing on the contract under Civ. Code, § 1717, and was therefore entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees as costs, where trial court granted the former employee's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Estate of Herold, A116959,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Prob. Code, § 21320, proceeding seeking a declaration that a proposed action against a trustee would not amount to a will contest, the trial court erred in finding that the will's no contest clause, which contained no reference to the testamentary trust, was incorporated by reference into the trust provisions of the decree of distribution.
|
|||||
| In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis & Arriaga, G038437,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action to dissolve an unregistered domestic partnership, filing partner should have been permitted to plead and prove a reasonable, good faith belief in existence of a registered domestic partnership because if successful, he would have been protected as a putative registered domestic partner under Fam. Code, § 2251 and Domestic Partner Act.
|
|||||
| People v. Bhakta, B190437,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which the State alleged that defendants had permitted a prostitution nuisance to exist at a motel in violation of California's red light abatement and unfair competition laws, defendants were not entitled to a jury trial, where the State sought equitable remedies and the "gist" of the action was equitable.
|
|||||
| People v. Gemmill, C055464,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No Fourth Amendment violation occurred when a deputy walked around the perimeter of a home and looked through a side window that was not impliedly accessible to the public because the limited intrusion was justified by finding an unattended child near the home and receiving no answer to a knock on the front door.
|
|||||
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. |
