 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Castillo v. Pacheco, B188991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants were committing a nuisance by holding large ceremonial outdoor open fires in their backyard, plaintiffs' nuisance claim against defendants, arising out of their ceremonial fire, was not subject to a special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.
|
|||||
| Forrest v. Department of Corporations, B186670,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff, who had been designated a vexatious litigant, was subject to a prefiling order under Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, she could maintain her action only if she was represented or if she obtained permission from presiding judge; because neither condition was satisfied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing her suit.
|
|||||
| In re Jaclyn S., A114754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process was not violated by appointment, under Code Civ. Proc., § 372, of a guardian ad litem for a mother in a dependency proceeding, even if the consequences were not fully explained before the mother agreed, because the appointment had little impact on the mother's ability to participate and a speedy disposition was in the child's interest.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Laurenti, B186946,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order requiring a parent to pay the fees of a court-appointed child custody evaluator was reversed because the trial shirked its duties under Evid. Code, § 730, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.220, to determine a reasonable fee for services performed by the evaluator before being disqualified from an appointment to evaluate school placement.
|
|||||
| Madden v. Del Taco, Inc., C051641,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a restaurant customer's action for injuries suffered in a fall from a wheelchair, summary adjudication should not have been granted for the restaurant because allowing a concrete trash container to block wheelchair access to a restaurant entrance was a prima facie violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and of Civ. Code, § 54.
|
|||||
| People v. Diaz, B185735,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for sexual crimes against an intoxicated victim, it was error to impose upper term sentences based on the victim's vulnerability because the factor was not submitted to the jury as required by the Sixth Amendment. To the extent that vulnerability finding was based on the jury's guilt determination, there was an illegal dual use of facts.
|
|||||
| People v. Kim , H029324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that counsel failed to advise him of the specific deportation consequences of his guilty plea to felony petty theft with a prior conviction was not cognizable via coram nobis because it was an assertion of ineffective assistance, rather than mistake of fact; defendant was aware of his status and of the general risk of deportation.
|
|||||
| People v. Perrusquia, G037094,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was properly suppressed in a drug and firearm case because the Fourth Amendment standard for a detention was not met when officers observed defendant's car idling in a convenience store lot, further than necessary from the entrance, and heard a thud on approaching. The hour was not particularly late, and the store was apparently open.
|
|||||
| Roush v. Seagate Technology, LLC, H030212,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee could not disqualify counsel in an employment discrimination case on the ground that counsel obtained information about her lawsuit from another employee; she did not show that she and the other employee were joint clients or that sharing information with him was reasonably necessary to her case under Evid. Code, §§ 952, 912, subd. (d).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
