 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Moss v. County of Humboldt, A114205, A114622,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner's filing of a new application for approval of a tentative map that had expired did not represent a new project, as defined in Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; a new environmental impact report was not required under Pub. Resources Code, § 21151, but new evidence made supplemental review necessary under Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.
|
|||||
| Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc., D051011,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., B193502,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court was authorized under Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.510, subd. (c), to determine whether the amounts that plaintiffs, the non-noticing parties in a pending action, were required to pay a court reporting firm for copies of deposition transcripts were reasonable, trial court's failure to exercise its discretion in this regard was error.
|
|||||
| Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com., No. B190122,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The California Coastal Commission's denial of a coastal development permit to a subdivision developer under the California Coastal Act was proper because the filing of the developer's vesting tentative map did not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction, and the Commission's reasons for denying the permit were supported by the record.
|
|||||
| People v. Varghese, D048456,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to counsel in a murder case did not entitle him to conduct a DNA test on a blood sample, which was one of only two samples, without reporting the results to the prosecution; were he allowed to do so, a result matching that of the People's expert could be destroyed and the People left unable to corroborate its expert's findings.
|
|||||
| People v. Watson, S024471,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case involving two victims, the trial court properly admitted crime scene and autopsy photographs. Although unpleasant, the photos depicted the nature of defendant's crimes without unnecessarily playing upon the jurors' emotions. The probative value of the photos was not clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect.
|
|||||
| California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, C055614,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Veh. Code, § 14602.6, subd. (a)(1), conferred only discretionary authority on law enforcement to impound an individual's vehicle if he was arrested for driving with a suspended license under Veh. Code, § 14601.1, CHP could not be held liable in a suit involving wrongful death under Gov. Code, § 815.6, for failing to perform mandatory duty.
|
|||||
| People v. Gemmill, C055464,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, B192656,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in permitting jury to decide meaning of the term "purchaser" in controlling contract between production company and an author where meaning of the term was not dependent on credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence; jury's interpretation of term was also incorrect because term did not include production company's subsidiaries.
|
|||||
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. |
