|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
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 |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback