 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| EFund Capital Partners v. Pless, B193575,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an investment fraud suit brought against a company's former officers, directors, and employees, an arbitration clause covering any dispute or other disagreement arising from or out of the investment agreement was broad enough to compel arbitration under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, although the named defendants were not parties to the agreement.
|
|||||
| Hageseth v. Superior Court, A115390,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jurisdiction was proper under Pen. Code, § 27, subd. (a)(1), and under the detrimental effect theory of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction as codified in Pen. Code, § 778, because a doctor who was not licensed in California knew, when he prescribed a drug over the Internet to a California resident, that the drug would be sent to California.
|
|||||
| In re Justin S., H030732,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In proceedings on remand to remedy an Indian Child Welfare Act notice error in terminating a mother's parental rights, the trial court erred in holding a hearing before the 60-day waiting period in Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.3, subd. (e)(3), had expired and in failing to provide notice and counsel to the mother.
|
|||||
| Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein, H027817,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Groundwater augmentation fee was fee or charge imposed as an incident of property ownership and thus subject to constitutional preconditions for imposition of such charges, pursuant to Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 2, subd. (e); because water management agency made no attempt to comply with those conditions, its ordinance increasing fee was invalid.
|
|||||
| People v. King (William), B172294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Decker), S130489,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's attempt to hire an undercover police detective, who was posing as a hired assassin, supported a charge of attempted murder because there was a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killings, as required under Pen. Code, § 21a. Defendant secured an agreement and provided information and a $ 5,000 downpayment.
|
|||||
| Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, B184025,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Gov. Code, § 831.4, gave a city absolute immunity from injuries caused by the condition of a bikeway on which a bicyclist was injured because the bikeway was a trail within the meaning of the statute.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Novato Unified School Dist., A112083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a student editorial communicated a student's viewpoint regarding undocumented immigrants in a disrespectful and unsophisticated manner, the editorial, which contained no direct provocation or racial epithets, was not inciting speech that a school district was authorized to prohibit under Ed. Code, § 48907.
|
|||||
| Tiffany A. v. Superior Court, No. B193134,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court's policy of shackling all minors during court appearances was prohibited because due process required that any decision to shackle a minor who appeared in the delinquency court for a court proceeding had to be based on the nonconforming conduct and behavior of that individual minor and had to be made on a case-by-case basis.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
