 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Rayna N., B206049,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 224.2, subd. (d), did not prohibit a limited reversal and remand to the juvenile court of a child custody case involving Indian children to permit compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act and applicable state law.
|
|||||
| McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, A115223,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Kin care statutes applied to a "sickness absence" policy, even though employees did not bank increments of leave prior to illness, because leave "accrued" within the meaning of Lab. Code, ¿ 233. Employees, after working one year, were provided as a matter of right with increments of up to five consecutive days of compensated leave for each illness.
|
|||||
| Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Assn. v. California Coastal Com., H031129,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mitigation fee imposed by California Coastal Commission as a condition for granting a coastal development permit sought by homeowners association to build a seawall was not an unconstitutional taking, as there was both a proper nexus and rough proportionality between fee and impact of the seawall on recreational use, which was the erosion of beach.
|
|||||
| People v. Barrios, A114150,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial arising from defendant's threat against his own counsel in a prior criminal trial, defendant was properly convicted of threatening a public official, even if the State failed to prove that defendant actually intended to carry out the threat, because Pen. Code, ¿ 76, subd. (a), did not require an actual intent to carry out the threat.
|
|||||
| People v. Sandoval, C055671,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fourth Amendment was violated by a patdown search because, according to testimony of the officer who conducted the search, he did not suspect that defendant was engaged in criminal activity and had no reason to believe defendant was armed. Search was not justified by fact that defendant was in front of a house where narcotics were thought to be.
|
|||||
| People v. Soria, H031237,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a plea bargain case involving three separately filed complaints, the imposition of three separate restitution fines totaling $ 10,600 was unauthorized because Pen. Code, ¿ 1202.4, limited fines to $ 10,000 where the charges in multiple cases were fully and completely resolved at the same time under a comprehensive, package plea bargain.
|
|||||
| Azure Limited v. I-Flow Corp., G038167,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Unclaimed Property Law did not immunize a corporation from liability for allegedly transferring non-escheated shares with knowledge of the shareholder's location and without giving notice because under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1532, subd. (b), there was no immunity for wrongful acts predating the transfer of shares to the state.
|
|||||
| People v. Jackson, C054954,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err during defendant's rape trial in ruling that Identifiler test kit used by prosecution did not require a full Kelly hearing because defendant's concerns were properly addressed through court's offer of Evid. Code, ¿ 402, hearing for a prong-three Kelly hearing to challenge whether test was correctly conducted by laboratory.
|
|||||
| San Joaquin County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Winn, C054387,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order requiring defendant to undergo genetic testing to determine whether he was the father of two children was not a final judgment subject to appellate review, where the order did not terminate the litigation between the parties or finally determine their rights in relation to the matter in controversy.
|
|||||
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. |
