 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arburn v. Department of Motor Vehicles, H030127,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in reversing driver's suspension under Veh. Code, § 13353.2, on grounds that his detention was unlawful because officer had reasonable suspicion to stop driver's vehicle; driver's weaving and near miss of a curb created an immediate concern for public safety and raised reasonable suspicion that he was driving under the influence.
|
|||||
| California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court, D049205,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a challenge to certification of an environmental impact report for a road project, the trial court erred in transferring venue to the county where the agency was located; the exception in Code Civ. Proc., § 393, subd. (b), for actions against public officers was not limited to actions seeking to vindicate private, as opposed to public, rights.
|
|||||
| County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, B183981,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As Gov. Code, § 17516, subd. (c), was unconstitutional to extent it exempted regional water boards from the Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6, state mandate subvention requirement, a court properly issued writ of mandate directing commission on state mandates to resolve test claims presented by county and cities on merits without reference to § 17516c.
|
|||||
| Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., B190950,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee provided sufficient information to employer to notify it of his need for leave pursuant to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), but employer did not advise employee of his right to CFRA leave. Employee made out prima facie case of retaliation for exercising his CFRA rights.
|
|||||
| In re Joseph M., B190202,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (b), the juvenile court had the discretion to consider the facts and circumstances of defendant minor's carjacking case in setting a period of physical confinement that was less than the maximum adult term but within the sentencing triad described in Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(3).
|
|||||
| Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian, B183966,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Timothy J. v. Superior Court, C052781, C052711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court erred in rejecting two minors' claims of incompetency to stand trial under former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1498(d), based on their age-related developmental immaturity because the rule did not require that a minor have a mental disorder or developmental disability before a hearing could be held or a finding made of incompetency.
|
|||||
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. |
