 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Saade, G038712,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in vacating defendant's aggravated term sentence on the ground that it violated his Sixth Amendment right under Cunningham v. California because Cunningham did not apply retroactively to sentences for which all avenues of direct appeal had been exhausted, and defendant's conviction was final well before Cunningham was decided.
|
|||||
| Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, B204618,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in dismissing dependency petition sua sponte and without notice at a detention hearing because, pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 319, 356, and 315, legislature did not intend for courts to resolve jurisdictional questions in such a manner. Furthermore, such a dismissal would run counter to notions of fundamental fairness.
|
|||||
| Tomlin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B199429,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where SWAT officer was injured while training for an imminent, mandatory, employment-related physical fitness test, his injury, even though occurring while on vacation, was compensable as a workers' compensation benefit; his training activities when he was injured were a reasonable expectancy of his employment under Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a)(9).
|
|||||
| Adair v. Stockton Unified School Dist., C054294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district's implementation of a compressed salary schedule in a collective bargaining agreement violated the uniformity requirement of Ed. Code, § 45028, because it resulted in less experienced teachers moving one step up the salary ladder per year, while more experienced teachers were regressed to step levels below their years of experience.
|
|||||
| City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, S145571,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's failure to fully comply with the notice requirements specified in Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.6, did not invalidate a receiver's appointment under Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7; although the posting requirement was mandatory, the city substantially complied by serving the owner personally with notice of the building code violations.
|
|||||
| People v. Uribe, H030630,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert, B192342,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Yount v. City of Sacramento, S139762,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee's conviction for resisting peace officers in violation of Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), did not in itself justify a police officer's accidental use of deadly force. Accordingly, arrestee's claims against the officer and the city that employed him were not barred to the extent they challenged the officer's accidental use of deadly force.
|
|||||
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. |
