 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Richardson, C052912,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant communicated harmful matter to a 13-year-old girl because he proposed committing sexual acts with her that would have violated Pen. Code, § 288, and conduct that came within § 288 was harmful as a matter of law under Pen. Code, §§ 288.2, subd. (b), 313, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| People v. Tena, B189667,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's requests for self-representation at the preliminary hearing in a domestic violence case because defendant's remarks were impulsive reactions to his frustrated attempts to secure an attorney who would subpoena the witnesses that he desired, rather than unequivocal requests for self-representation.
|
|||||
| Sabbah v. Sabbah, G037223,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a hearing on a domestic violence restraining order, the trial court was not required to notify a former husband, under Fam. Code, § 3044, that there was rebuttable presumption against an award of custody to a domestic violence perpetrator because the husband did not contest custody and there was no record of any custody mediation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
