 |
|
 |
|
|
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 M.S., A122580,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court did not err in committing defendant juvenile, who had diabetes, to California's Division of Juvenile Justice because defendant's claimed ADA violation was not cognizable in the context of his appeal as grounds for reversal of an otherwise valid dispositional order, and because the dispositional order did not violate due process.
|
|||||
| Flir Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, No. B209964,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trade secret action against former employees who planned to start a competing business was filed and maintained in bad faith, warranting an award of attorney fees and costs under Civ. Code, ¿ 3426.4; there was no showing of actual damages, misappropriation, threatened misappropriation, or imminent harm, and settlement demands were unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., E045443,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumer's action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civ. Code, ¿ 1790 et seq., which alleged a latent defect, was not barred by lack of notification of the defect within one year; Civ. Code, ¿ 1791.1, subd. (c), could not reasonably be construed to create a notification deadline.
|
|||||
| People v. Avila, S078664,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On an attempted murder charge under Pen. Code, ¿¿ 187, 189, 664, defendant's intent to kill the victim was sufficiently established by evidence that defendant repeatedly attempted to stab the unarmed and trapped victim and succeeded in stabbing the victim in the arm and leg. In addition, defendant then fatally stabbed two other victims.
|
|||||
| People v. Dykes, S050851,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by admitting victim-impact evidence during penalty phase of defendant's capital murder trial, as it carefully considered whether proposed testimony fell within appropriate limits and made every effort to ensure it was not inflammatory; its response to jury question concerning Pen. Code, ¿ 190.3, factor (k), was also proper.
|
|||||
| People v. Meredith, C057232,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was substantial evidence that a homeowner intended to return to his home and no evidence that he had moved out or abandoned the intent to return as of December 27, 2006, substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that defendant committed first degree burglary, in violation of Pen. Code, ¿ 460, on that date.
|
|||||
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. |
