 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooley v. Superior Court, B189338,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a civil action brought by a lead plaintiff against a motorist who had driven his car on a street closed for traffic into a farmer's market, the trial court erred in requiring that certain business records be produced by the district attorney (DA), a nonparty, where the DA was not the custodian of the records under Evid. Code, § 1561.
|
|||||
| In re Baby Boy V., B187823,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged father was entitled to presumed father status under Fam. Code, § 7611, subd. (d), even though he did come forward until eight months after the child became dependent, because it was undisputed that he came forward at the earliest possible moment after learning of baby's existence and that he was non-offending and financially responsible.
|
|||||
| Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. v. Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club, G035099,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in a stock sale dispute, based on collateral estoppel, without resolving whether a right of first offer was triggered by a sale of the stock; although this issue was an alternate ground for a previous judgment, res judicata did not apply because it was not considered on appeal from that judgment.
|
|||||
| People v. Johnson, S127602,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, when the trial court found that defendant had not made out a prima facie case of group bias under Batson v. Kentucky, it erred in not moving on to steps two and three of the Batson three-step procedure. A limited remand was ordered to permit the prosecutor to explain his reasons for excluding the prospective jurors in question.
|
|||||
| People v. Wells, S128640,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An anonymous tip of a possibly intoxicated highway driver weaving all over the roadway was sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop and detention of the driver, even though during the brief period while observing the vehicle before stopping it, the officer saw nothing to indicate the driver was intoxicated.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles, B182835,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One-year statute of limitations in Gov. Code, § 3304, subd. (d), barred a police department's punitive action of downgrading an officer's pay grade position because the only disciplinary action proposed by the department within one year of discovering the operative facts was a 20-day suspension and the paperwork at that time eschewed a downgrade.
|
|||||
| Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Com., B183435,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: PUC prejudicially failed to proceed in the manner required by Pub. Util. Code, § 1757.1, subd. (a), because its prevailing wage proposal was beyond the scope of issues identified in its scoping memo, it violated its own rules by considering the new issue, and three business days was insufficient time for the parties to respond to the new proposals.
|
|||||
| Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. Zanker, F047094,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no price for the sale of water was specified in a contract that conveyed an appropriative water right to two water districts and that provided for a continuing water supply for a town's needs, Wat. Code, § 22280, subd. (c), empowered the districts to determine the price, which included the cost of treating the water.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
