 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Marriage of Antonio J. And Rhonda Tavares, G036122,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Assn., C048310,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling untimely a judgment debtor's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, where the motion was filed one full week before the date scheduled for the judgment debtor's examination. The judgment debtor's motion to quash was timely and was reasonably made as required by Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.
|
|||||
| Matthau v. Superior Court, B194637,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Talent agency's attempt to compel deceased actor's son and loan out company to arbitrate talent agency's claim for commissions failed, because neither son nor loan out company was a party to any agreement with talent agency, and because none of the legal principles under which a nonsignatory could be bound to another's agreement applied.
|
|||||
| People v. Abercrombie, C051865,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of, inter alia, lewd conduct with a child, the trial court's imposition of an upper prison sentence for defendant because he was on parole at the time of the crime did not run afoul of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Feyrer, No. B192752,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because imposition of sentence was suspended for an assault offense that was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, the trial court retained jurisdiction and had discretion, after an early termination of probation, to determine whether to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor under Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b), regardless of an enhancement.
|
|||||
| People v. Fluker, B193079,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's imposition of an upper term sentence in a drug possession case on the sole basis of its factual findings that defendant's conduct in the courtroom constituted an escape attempt or disruption, which was an issue not submitted to the jury or admitted by defendant, violated defendant's federal constitutional right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Robinson, C051338,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel for defendant in competency proceedings under Pen. Code, § 1368, once it declared a doubt as to his competency to stand trial on charges of burglary and petty theft; however, a retrospective competency hearing could cure the error because the record contained evidence of defendant's mental condition.
|
|||||
| People v. Sullivan, A109149,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Pen. Code, §§ 211-212.5, robbery convictions were proper where no prejudicial errors were committed in resolution of his motions related to his right to counsel, robbery statute was not vague, no instructional error occurred, the convictions were supported by the evidence, and his sentence did not violate any constitutional principles.
|
|||||
| Ramalingam v. Thompson, H030097,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
