|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 22, 2009
|
| |
Guzman v. County of Monterey, S157793,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Health & Saf. Code, ?? 116325, 116450, subd. (a), and regulations governing the duties of a local primacy agency, a county did not have an implied mandatory duty to direct the operator of a water system to notify residents of contamination; thus, the county could not be liable under Gov. Code, ? 815.6, for failing to do so.
|
|
| |
Haah v. Kim, B209179,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Investors who had entered into agreements to take shares in a corporation but who had not yet been issued those shares had standing under Corp. Code, ? 709, subd. (a), to bring an action to invalidate the appointment or election of a director, although they did not meet the statutory definition of "shareholder" in Corp. Code, ? 185.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Johnson v. E-Z Ins. Brokerage, Inc., G040241, G040433,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Quitclaim grantee of real property conveyed by a judgment debtor in bankruptcy was not entitled to personal service of a Code Civ. Proc., ? 683.180, application to renew the judgment because the debtor had no interest to convey while in bankruptcy and no title later vested in the grantee because Civ. Code, ? 1106, did not apply to quitclaim deeds.
|
|
| |
People v. Govea, B205715,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Delay in conducting a Marsden hearing after counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's competence under Pen. Code, ? 1368, did not impair defendant's Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const., 6th Amend., right to effective representation because the trial court conducted the Marsden hearing before it ruled on competency and because new counsel was appointed.
|
|
| |
People v. Medina, S155823,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported convictions of two participants in a gang-related fistfight as aiders and abettors of first degree murder under Pen. Code, ? 187, subd. (a), and attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder under Pen. Code, ?? 664, 187, subd. (a), because another gang member's shooting of the victim was reasonably foreseeable.
|
|
| |
People v. Millard, D047681, D049268,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a criminal case arising from a collision, the trial court did not err by reducing the amount of the victim's restitution by 25 percent because the victim's contributory or comparative negligence could be considered under Pen. Code, ? 1202.4. The evidence supported inferences that the victim was speeding and did not try to avoid the collision.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback