 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson, S126780,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Resolution containing proposed amendments to the California Constitution, which were a primary elections provision and a state property and bonds repayment provision, violated the single subject rule governing Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 1, which required a showing that the provisions were reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Seagondollar, G035270,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in modifying a shared custody arrangement to give a mother sole custody and permission to leave the state under Fam. Code, § 7501, subd. (a), because the mother did not request affirmative relief before a custody evaluation, the evaluation's purpose was not stated, and the father was denied a continuance to present an expert.
|
|||||
| People v. Johnson, F046939,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A "cold hit" from a DNA database that was used to identify defendant as a possible rape suspect was not subject to the Kelly-Frye standard of admissibility because such a DNA database search merely provided law enforcement with an investigative tool, not evidence of guilt.
|
|||||
| People v. Mojica, B176369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because California and federal felony tax evasion statutes were substantially identical, appellate court had to follow federal interpretation; as a result, because Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706, required proof of a tax deficiency as an element of tax evasion offense, failure to instruct jury on the tax deficiency requirement was not harmless error.
|
|||||
| Pinto v. City of Visalia, F048094,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer who was off duty when he gave advice to a minor regarding the minor's sexual relationship with an adult did not receive information about child abuse either in the scope of employment or in a professional capacity; thus, he could not be terminated for failing to report child abuse under Pen. Code, §§ 11166, 11165.7, subd. (a)(19).
|
|||||
| Stephens v. County of Tulare, S129794,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a letter placing an injured county employee on sick leave and telling him not to return to work until his condition improved was not a dismissal within the meaning of Gov. Code, § 31725, the employee was not entitled to receive back wages and benefits when he returned to work after his application for disability retirement was denied.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc., D044470,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly declined to apportion noneconomic damages of scissor lift buyer's employees because Proposition 51 (otherwise known as Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 and codified in Civ. Code, §§ 1431 to 1431.5) did not apply in favor of lift seller, an intentional tortfeasor, as against the employees or the buyer, as a negligent tortfeasor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
