|
|
| |
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 3, 2008
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback