 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Contra Costa v. Public Employees Union Local One, A115095, A115118,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent evidence of unfair labor practices under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the California Public Employment Relations Board did not have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Gov. Code, §§ 3509, subd. (b), 3541.3, subd. (j), regarding a county's complaint for injunctive relief to prevent certain essential employees from participating in a strike.
|
|||||
| Dyer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, C054971,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision granting driver's petition for writ of administrative mandamus after driver's license was suspended was reversed, where there was no evidentiary basis to support a finding that Veh. Code, § 40800, was violated because detaining officer, who pulled driver over on suspicion of DUI, was driving an unmarked patrol vehicle.
|
|||||
| Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, S143689,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Approval under Pub. Resources Code, §§ 4581-4582.5, of three timber harvest plans for private land in the Sierra Nevada mountains was proper; the plans complied with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 898, foll. 952.9, by addressing potential cumulative impacts on biological resources over a large area, although designated assessment areas were smaller.
|
|||||
| Guardado v. Superior Court, B201147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, to a judge in a personal injury case, made after the judge granted an order authorizing the claimant to conduct pretrial punitive damages discovery under Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (c), was not precluded because the ruling was not a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits.
|
|||||
| People v. Golde, C053632,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury or with a deadly weapon, a car, in violation of Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), where three witnesses testified that they saw defendant drive his car toward the victim.
|
|||||
| People v. Kelly, B195624, B201234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.77, unconstitutionally amended the California Compassionate Use Act, it was prejudicial error to allow prosecutor to argue that defendant could be found guilty of the charged crimes if he had more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and did not have doctor's recommendation to have more than that amount.
|
|||||
| People v. Richardson, S029588,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During a capital murder trial, it was not improper for the prosecutor to use peremptory challenges to excuse death penalty skeptics, and trial court's excusal for cause of prospective jurors who stated unequivocally they could not impose death penalty did not violate defendant's right to representative jury because court's questioning was adequate.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. Superior Court, S127275,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a postconviction motion for DNA testing of hair evidence in a murder case by reason of failure to demonstrate under Pen. Code, § 1405, subd. (f)(5), that testing would raise a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome; there was strong evidence of identity apart from the hair evidence.
|
|||||
| The TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court, G038807 & G039040,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In cardholder's class action against department stores for violations of Civ. Code, § 1747.08, the trial court erred in denying stores' motion to strike allegation defining class as users of credit cards within last three years because one-year statute of limitations of Code Civ. Proc., § 340 applied, as § 1747.08, subd. (e), imposed a penalty.
|
|||||
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. |
