 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Facundo Guerrero v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A119814,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured worker's constitutional challenges to a limitation on authorized chiropractic treatments under Lab. Code, ¿ 4604.5, subd. (d), lacked merit because Cal. Const., art. XIV, ¿ 4, did not entitle him to unlimited treatments, there was no unconstitutional delegation of power, and his due process and equal protection rights were not violated.
|
|||||
| In re Claudia E., D052169,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency proceeding, the juvenile court should have considered the children's motion for a declaration as to whether the social services department had a policy of filing untimely supplemental petitions in dependency proceedings because the court had inherent power under Cal. Const., art. VI, ¿ 1 to grant declaratory relief.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzalez, S149898,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeal wrongly ordered trial court to strike firearm enhancements; Pen. Code, ¿ 12022.53, required that, after trial court imposed punishment for ¿ 12022.53 enhancement with longest term of imprisonment, remaining ¿ 12022.53 enhancements and any Pen. Code, ¿ 12022.5, enhancements found true for same crime had to be imposed and then stayed.
|
|||||
| Perlin v. Fountain View Management, Inc., B193182,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an elder abuse suit, successful plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 15657, because they failed to obtain verdict establishing causationan element of liabilityby clear and convincing evidence. The jury found causation under a preponderance standard, on which they were instructed at plaintiffs' request.
|
|||||
| Verdin v. Superior Court, S143040,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 2, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendant could not be required to submit to a mental examination by an expert retained by the prosecution because such discovery was not authorized by the criminal discovery statutes, Pen. Code, ¿ 1054 et seq., or any other statute and was not mandated by the United States Constitution; thus, it would violate Pen. Code, ¿ 1054, subd. (e).
|
|||||
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. |
