 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, LP, D045218,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff, in an arbitral forum, subpoenaed certain documents from a surgery center, the limited review provisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.05, subd. (c), did not bind the center, which was not a party to the arbitration agreement. The trial court had jurisdiction to hear the center's motion for a protective order.
|
|||||
| Century Surety Co. v. Polisso, C045334,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A punitive damage award of $ 2,015,000 for insureds was not excessive because the insurer's conduct, including stalling and engaging in scare tactics, was moderately high on the reprehensibility scale; the punitive/compensatory ratio of 3.2-to-1 was well within the constitutional limit; and a smaller award would have been a slap on the wrist.
|
|||||
| People v. Johnson, S119230,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a hearing on motion to suppress evidence under Pen. Code, § 1538.5, the prosecution could not present its case through the affidavit of the police officer who conducted a challenged warrantless search. Section 1538.5 contemplated testimony through live witnesses, and Code Civ. Proc., § 2009, did not apply to a hearing under Pen. Code, § 1538.5.
|
|||||
| People v. McGee, S123474,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an assault and robbery case, defendant was not entitled to have the jury determine whether prior convictions in Nevada were serious felony convictions under California law; the recidivism exception to the Apprendi rule was not limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction and permitted the trial court to determine the nature of the convictions.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Figueroa, B182738,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
