 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., S126397,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Automatic vicarious disqualification of an entire city attorney's office was required where the city attorney, while in private practice, had previously represented a company that was being sued by the city in a matter substantially related to his prior representation of the company.
|
|||||
| In re Shirley K., D047554,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court should have considered a child's best interests when considering grandparents' petition under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, to reinstate in their home a grandchild who had been in their care for 20 months, most of her life. Refusal to consider grandparents' remedial efforts supported a conclusion that the agency abused its discretion.
|
|||||
| People v. Brown, C048147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's acquittal for elder abuse did not bar his retrial for assault and battery because his case presented only a continuing prosecution and not successive prosecutions; the protections against double jeopardy in U.S. Const., 5th Amend., Cal. Const., art. I, § 15, and Pen. Code, §§ 654 & 1023, applied only to successive prosecutions.
|
|||||
| People v. Standish, S129755,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case of animal cruelty and other offenses, defendant was entitled to own recognizance (OR) release pursuant to Pen. Code, § 859b, when the preliminary examination was continued for good cause at the prosecutor's request; however, the erroneous denial of OR release did not entitle defendant to dismissal absent a showing of prejudice.
|
|||||
| People v. Moniz, C048738,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for concealing or destroying evidence in violation of Pen. Code, § 135, was not a misdemeanor related to drugs. Therefore, defendant was ineligible for treatment under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, Pen. Code, §§ 1210 & 1210.1.
|
|||||
| People v. Torres, No. E038763,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Budwiser, C049566,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(A), (B), did not require separate revocation hearings on two petitions. Substantial evidence supported a finding that defendant was unamenable to treatment under § 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(B), because he was removed from a treatment program for three dirty tests and was found with a whizanator strapped to his penis.
|
|||||
| People v. Sandoval, D045846,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled under Pen. Code, § 1018, to withdraw a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter; a package deal plea agreement with three codefendants who were members of his gang was coercive because of a threat from a codefendant, the benefit to the codefendants from his plea, and the trial judge's favorable comments about the offer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
