 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Butte v. Butte County Superior Court, C057152,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A qualified medical marijuana patient was entitled to an adjudication in a civil action as to whether a deputy had probable cause, under Cal. Const. art. I, § 13, to order him to destroy all but 12 of the 41 medical marijuana plants that were being grown at the patient's home for a collective of medical marijuana patients.
|
|||||
| Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, B209863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class member who failed to submit a timely claim form was collaterally estopped by judicial approval of the settlement from maintaining a legal malpractice action asserting that class counsel should have negotiated a different settlement notice procedure; such approval necessarily included a finding that the settlement notice procedure was proper.
|
|||||
| People v. Johndrow, C055620,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's commitment to the California Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term following a jury's finding that he was a sexually violent predator subject only to the limited review contained in Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6605 & 6608, did not violate his right to due process.
|
|||||
| Venoco, Inc. v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., No. B206207,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's failure to comply with a 60-day notice requirement in a pollution buy-back provision precluded coverage because the provision was sufficiently conspicuous and proof of prejudice was not necessary; moreover, claims for long-term toxic exposure and failure to warn were excluded, and a duty to defend false claims provision did not apply.
|
|||||
| Hughes v. Pair, S157197,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trustee did not sexually harass the mother of trust beneficiary because the alleged sexual harassment comments defendant made to plaintiff during a single telephone conversation and a brief statement to plaintiff in person later that day during a social event at a museum were not "pervasive or severe," within the meaning of Civ. Code, § 51.9.
|
|||||
| In re Eddie L., C059237,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a juvenile court sustained a charge of second degree robbery while armed with a firearm against defendant minor, juvenile court did not err in selecting the upper term of five years for the robbery and adding one year for the arming enhancement. Juvenile court did what was required under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c).
|
|||||
| People v. Farley, S024833,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Felony murder instruction based on burglary was proper because vandalism under former Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1), was a proper basis for burglary and the assaults on the victims were not alleged as target offenses of the burglary; however, case law under Pen. Code, § 189, applying the felony-murder merger doctrine to burglary was disapproved.
|
|||||
| People v. Nguyen, S154847,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior juvenile adjudication could be used as a prior strike in a drug and weapons case; he was not expressly within the Apprendi rule because he waived a jury trial on the issue in the current proceeding, and the lack of a jury trial right in the juvenile proceeding did not violate his rights under U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 14th Amends.
|
|||||
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. |
