|
| |
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
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|