 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., G036522,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Brian J., E038381,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 1801.5, evidence supported defendant's extended commitment to California Youth Authority because psychologist opined he was physically dangerous and would not be able to control his behavior and performed a risk analysis showing well-founded risk he would reoffend and tied that risk to his diagnosed disorders.
|
|||||
| Indyway Investment v. Cooper , B192944,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tax sale dispute, the filing of a notice of appeal signed by a nonattorney trustee was permissible under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100, and did not constitute unauthorized practice of law on behalf of the beneficiaries; alternatively, any defect in the filing was corrected when the trust obtained an attorney within a reasonable time.
|
|||||
| Infinet Marketing Services, Inc. v. American Motorist Ins. Co., G036312, G036248,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Guess, H029808,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was Sixth Amendment error to impose an upper term sentence for abetting a lewd act without force or duress without a jury finding as to whether defendant was on probation and parole when the crime was committed because being admitted to parole was not among the facts fitting the fact of a prior conviction exception to the jury requirement.
|
|||||
| People v. Schnabel, C052400,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for child molestation involving three different girls, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence defendant's prior sex offenses pursuant to Evid. Code, ¿ 1108, and in instructing the jury on their use.
|
|||||
| People v. Shadden, F048765,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted under Pen. Code, ¿ 247, subd. (b), for shooting at an unoccupied car that was registered in the names of both defendant's girlfriend and defendant; the owner-consent provision of ¿ 247, subd. (b), required the consent of all owners, not just that of the shooter, where the shooter was one of several co-owners.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, B189383,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for animal cruelty in violation of Pen. Code, ¿ 597, subd. (a), defendant was subject to a deadly weapon enhancement under Pen. Code, ¿ 12022, subd. (b)(1), where defendant killed his girlfriend's dog with a knife. Defendant's use of the knife was merely the means by which the offense was committed.
|
|||||
| Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian, B183966,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ample evidence of noncompliance supported the imposition of terminating sanctions in an action for unpaid attorney fees; the clients failed to respond to interrogatories and production demands, they failed to pay monetary sanctions, and their attorney declared that she was unable to locate them.
|
|||||
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. |
