 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Advanced-Tech Security Services, Inc. v. Superior Court, B205186,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employer paid its employee one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for each hour she worked over 8 hours in one day and for her work over 40 hours during the two weeks she also worked on a holiday, the employer paid the employee in compliance with Lab. Code, ¿ 510, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Cinquegrani v. Department of Motor Vehicles, B199859,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Veh. Code, ¿ 23620, did not authorize the suspension of a driver's license as punishment for boating under the influence (BUI). Thus, in a class action lawsuit, the trial court correctly enjoined the California Department of Motor Vehicles from suspending the driver's licenses of individuals convicted of BUI.
|
|||||
| In re Joseph T., Jr., B198610,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 361.3, subd. (d), did not eliminate the relative placement preference after initial placement and during the family reunification period, failure to give preference to an aunt and to state reasons under ¿ 361.3, subd. (e), were harmless errors because there were compelling reasons not to place the child with her.
|
|||||
| In re R.D., E044391,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency case, the child's legal guardian was his aunt, who resided in San Bernardino County, California, and the aunt was the person given care or custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 17.1, subd. (a), the child's residence was properly determined to be San Bernardino County.
|
|||||
| Morris v. Chiang, B194764,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action alleging unconstitutional takings of property, namely interest and other accruals on unclaimed property held pursuant to the California Unclaimed Property Law, plaintiff was not entitled to interest earned on property during the holding period because title to property was legitimately vested in the state during that period.
|
|||||
| People v. Bautista, H030458,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction under Pen. Code, ¿ 289, subd. (d)(4), for sexual penetration of a person unconscious of the nature of the act; in his role as an unpaid pastor, defendant could purport to have a professional purpose for his actions, and the victim's testimony established that she was misled as to his intentions.
|
|||||
| People v. Mauch, G038602,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court lacked authority to reduce defendant's conviction, following a guilty plea, for felony cultivation of marijuana, in violation of Health & Saf. Code, ¿ 11358, to a misdemeanor because the legislature had determined violation of ¿ 11358 to be a felony offense without also prescribing alternate, misdemeanor punishment.
|
|||||
| People v. Treadway, G038824,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant committed a new drunk driving offense under Veh. Code, ¿ 23152, after the amendment of Veh. Code, ¿ 23550, to increase the look-back period from seven to 10 years, he was on notice of the amended law; thus, the use of a prior offense that was more than seven but less than 10 years old did not result in an ex post facto violation.
|
|||||
| Southern California Regional Rail Authority v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, B200777,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a commuter train derailment, preemption under 49 U.S.C. ¿ 20106(a)(2) barred negligence claims by passengers, railroad workers, and their survivors, based on time, place and manner of operating a commuter train in push mode, i.e., with an occupied cab car in the lead because federal regulations contemplated such operation.
|
|||||
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. |
