 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Department of California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, H029406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the issuance of standard citations for helmet violations implied that the citing officers found that a motorcyclist presented an immediate safety hazard to himself, a superior court erred in disregarding those implied findings and in deeming the violations to be correctable offenses as provided in Veh. Code, §§ 40303.5, 40610.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Williams, H028532,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a father was wealthy, in the absence of a showing under Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b), of special circumstances rendering guideline support unjust or inappropriate, the trial court erred in including a hypothetical three percent return on the father's home equity in determining his income for purposes of calculating guideline child support.
|
|||||
| In re Vincent M., H030258,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court erred in refusing to apply the ICWA's substantive provisions at a Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, hearing for an Indian child because the existing Indian family doctrine was not valid; the application of the ICWA did not conflict with the United States Constitution and was consistent with California's statutes.
|
|||||
| People v. Cook, S042659,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's first-degree murder convictions under Pen. Code, § 187, were upheld where trial court did not err in admitting evidence of electrophoretic testing of bloodstains on tennis shoes found in his garage, he failed to show various identification procedures were unduly suggestive, and there was no juror or prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Ibarra, D049605,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for attempted murder, there was no error under Evid. Code, § 352, in admitting a videotape that a reality television show recorded as police rescued defendant's estranged girlfriend from him because the tape did not distort events, was probative of intent, and corroborated testimony as to the force needed and the victim's condition.
|
|||||
| People v. Leonard, S054291,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Competency of a murder defendant who was disabled by epilepsy should, under Pen. Code, § 1369, have been evaluated by the director of the regional center for the developmentally disabled, but failure to appoint director was not prejudicial because defendant's competency to stand trial was evaluated by doctors who were familiar with his disability.
|
|||||
| SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC, B191166,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrators did not abuse their discretion in denying a continuance in a securities fraud case because the investor belatedly brought additional claims and delayed the arbitration in other ways; hence, the arbitrators' ruling was reasonable, and the investor was not entitled to vacation of the award under Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(5).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
