 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. Evans, D051144,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction prohibiting an ex-wife from making false and defamatory statements before any statements had been found at trial to be defamatory was an unconstitutional prior restraint under U.S. Const., 1st Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, ¿ 2, subd. (a), and was vague and overbroad because it did not specify what statements it prohibited.
|
|||||
| Haraguchi v. Superior Court, S148207,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion to recuse a prosecutor under Pen. Code, ¿ 1424, should not have been reversed because substantial evidence supported finding that no disabling conflict arose in prosecuting a rape of an intoxicated victim, even though prosecutor had recently published a novel about a fictional prosecutor's decision whether to try a similar case.
|
|||||
| Hollywood v. Superior Court, S147954,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's recusal was not required under Pen. Code, ¿ 1424, in a murder prosecution, even though the prosecutor, bent on tracking down a fugitive defendant, gave case files to a filmmaker because the prosecutor's statements supported a finding that any disclosure of confidential materials was at most negligent and did not create a conflict.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Holtemann, No. B203089,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A transmutation agreement contained an express declaration sufficient to transmute a husband's separate property into community property, as contemplated by Fam. Code, ¿ 852, subd. (a); its repeated, express declarations of transmutation were not rendered ambiguous by language indicating that it was executed solely for estate planning purposes.
|
|||||
| People v. Ross, No. B201673,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who had been arrested, violated Pen. Code, ¿ 4574, by lying to the booking officer about her possession of the knife when she entered the jail. Had defendant been truthful at booking, she would not have entered the jail with the knife and would not have been charged with violating ¿ 4574.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.), S149123,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution's involvement in third party subpoena hearings in a child sexual abuse case did not create a conflict of interest warranting recusal under Pen. Code, ¿ 1424, because the prosecution did not assume representation of the child by expressing concerns about the child's privacy rights and requesting appointment of a guardian ad litem.
|
|||||
| Kimball Avenue v. Franco, G039767,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(3), because a trial court could not restart the clock for filing a notice of appeal by vacating and "re-entering" a judgment on the ground that plaintiff never received notice of entry of judgment as required by Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 664.5, subds. (a), (b).
|
|||||
| Montegani v. Johnson, F052530,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court acted within its inherent authority to protect the estate when, after an appellate decision that a daughter had triggered a no contest clause of an irrevocable trust, the trial court reconsidered on its own motion a grant of Prob. Code, ¿ 21320, relief and ruled that the daughter lacked standing because she was no longer a beneficiary.
|
|||||
| Price v. Connolly-Pacific Co., B200083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commuter seaman was not entitled to receive maintenance and cure from barge owner under the Ship Owner's Liability Convention. Stipulated evidence that was presented at trial indicated that seaman was far more likely infected with the disease at night while he was camping out in owner's parking lot than during the day while working on the barge.
|
|||||
| Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd., C053553,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of an employer's retaliatory acts prior to an employee's protected activity supported a claim of constructive discharge under Gov. Code, ¿ 12940, because FEHA protected employees against preemptive retaliation by employers. The evidence suggested that the employer feared that the employee would be a witness in a sexual harassment claim.
|
|||||
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. |
