LexisNexis
  

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.


   State Courts - California - May 23 - May 24, 2006

  
Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin, C047734, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: To establish liability under Gov. Code § 835, subd. (a), for injury caused by a dangerous condition at an intersection, an injured driver had to prove that county that controlled the intersection acted negligently or wrongfully. Testimony that stop sign at issue was in the best place provided substantial evidence that the county was not negligent.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People ex rel. Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Cars 4 Causes, No. B178000, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a case in which the State sued a nonprofit corporation, a decision to grant the corporation's motion for judgment pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8, was reversed, where the undisputed evidence established that the corporation sold and delivered cars to the general public in violation of California Vehicle Code smog certification requirements.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People ex rel. Strumpfer v. Westoaks Investment #27, B178628, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court erred when, at the request of a receiver, it cancelled tax delinquency charges against limited partnerships pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code, § 4985.2, subd. (c), without making factual findings under § 4985.2, subds. (a), (b); the trial court did not have independent authority under § 4985.2, subd. (c), to cancel the charges.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. R.T.P., E036355, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he was called as a witness at the preliminary hearing in an unrelated homicide case without the presence of his counsel, despite the near certainty that defendant would be cross-examined about his current drug charges; dismissal was not required, however.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Silveira v. County of Alameda, A108702, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although a tenant argued that, as a month-to-month tenant, he had no taxable right to continued possession of city-owned property beyond one month as required by Rev. & Tax. Code, § 107, he had the same right to continued possession as any tenant whose interest is subject to termination or renewal.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Baylis, A106217, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to substitute retained counsel for his appointed counsel because of a conflict of interest. Under Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310(C), defendant's brother was required to give informed consent in order for retained counsel to represent defendant, but brother's waiver did not adequately waive conflict.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Huggins, S037006, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
R. (Fernando), In re, S142296, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.