 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bowen v. Ryan, C051930,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case alleging that a dentist choked an eight-year-old patient and shoved the patient against a wall, it was error under Evid. Code, ¿ 1101, to admit evidence of nine incidents in which the dentist allegedly mistreated other difficult-to-treat child patients. Hitting and restraining were not sufficiently similar to show a common plan.
|
|||||
| In re Angel R., G039120,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stickers discovered in a minor's shoe fell within definition of an implement as proscribed by Pen. Code, ¿ 594.2, subd. (c)(2), because they could be used quickly to mark surfaces without the time expenditure that either painting or writing would require; four stickers were adhesive-backed letters constituting the monogram of minor's tagging crew.
|
|||||
| In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings, S138974,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A final program environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for a plan addressing pollution problems of California's Bay-Delta region complied with CEQA by identifying potential sources of water and analyzing associated environmental effects in general terms; the level of detail was consistent with its first-tier programmatic nature.
|
|||||
| In re Darlene T., B200176,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court did not have authority under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 362, subd. (a), to order a county social services agency to make retroactive Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Foster Care payments to a maternal grandmother without an administrative determination of eligibility.
|
|||||
| Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Ins. Co., B189133,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a school construction dispute, the trial court erred by not provisionally considering extrinsic evidence proffered for the purpose of determining whether contractual language was reasonably susceptible to the contractor's interpretation, as authorized under the parol evidence rule codified at Civ. Code, ¿ 1625, and Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1856.
|
|||||
| People v. Najera, S141654,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court therefore had no duty to give CALJIC No. 2.15 on its own motion because the portion that defendant claimed should have been given was merely a specific application of the general instruction governing circumstantial evidence; therefore, the omitted instruction was not vital to a proper consideration of the evidence by the jury.
|
|||||
| Shufelt v. Hall, D050975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's notice of appeal of a judgment dismissing his action for declaratory relief was timely under the prison-delivery doctrine, where prisoner provided his notice of appeal to prison authorities before the due date for its filing, even though the notice of appeal itself was filed after 60-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
