 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Everett v. State Farm General Ins. Co., E041807,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Marriage Cases, S147999,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By excluding same-sex couples from the designation of marriage, Fam. Code §§ 300 and 308.5, violated Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7 because the fundamental civil right to marry applied without regard to sexual orientation and the state did not have a compelling interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples.
|
|||||
| Kruse v. Superior Court, C055654,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delay in resuming a postponed preliminary hearing was not justified pursuant to Pen. Code, § 861, subd. (a), by an affidavit showing good cause; although an affidavit was submitted regarding the prosecutor's illness, the record indicated that the delay was caused primarily by transportation problems, and dismissal was the appropriate remedy.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore, H030965,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm's claim in quantum meruit to recover fees for services rendered to a client personally, not as the executor of an estate, was not barred by a final probate judgment finding that the disputed fees were not expenses of the estate under Prob. Code, §§ 10800, 10810, 10811; the estate was not responsible under Prob. Code, § 9820, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| People v. Zarazua, C047726,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain enhancement allegation under Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d), that defendants' discharge of firearms proximately caused child's death. Traffic accident that was immediate cause of child's death was a foreseeable result - a direct, natural, and probable consequence - of defendants' discharges of their firearms.
|
|||||
| Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California, G037749,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 15, 2008, 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. |
