 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bob Parrett Construction, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B188345,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a corporation that opposed another corporation's motion for a determination of a good faith settlement was not a party to that settlement, Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, nevertheless applied because the case was not one where separate settlements were only among and between some joint tortfeasors; the settlement was with an injured party.
|
|||||
| Higgins v. Superior Court, B187818,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which siblings sued various entities involved with the production and the broadcast of a reality-based television series, because an arbitration provision contained in a written agreement that the siblings executed was harsh and one-sided, the provision was unconscionable and unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co., B173022,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a product liability suit relating to the absence of a three-point harness in a minivan, discovery sanctions against the manufacturer were proper under Code Civ. Proc., 2023.030, because a pattern of abuse led to loss of evidence on failure to warn. It was not excessive to instruct that the manufacturer failed to warn of a dangerous condition.
|
|||||
| People v. Delgado, A109991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mandatory probation conditions of Pen. Code, § 1203.097, including a 36-month minimum term of probation and $ 400 payment, should not have been imposed on a defendant who pled guilty in 2005 to domestic violence offenses that occurred in 1993, before § 1203.097 was passed, because the retroactive application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
|
|||||
| People v. Hunter, D046986,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Fourth Amendment, a parole agent retained the authority to conduct a parole search while a parolee was incarcerated on a parole violation because the parolee was still a parolee until parole was formally revoked more than a month later. Therefore, evidence from the search of a storage unit was properly admitted in trial for burglary.
|
|||||
| People v. Karapetyan, C048289,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in instructing a jury regarding the liability for murder of an aider and abettor to assault because assuming that the jury believed that defendant aided and abetted his sons in assaulting victim, the jury also could have believed it was reasonably foreseeable that death was a natural and probable consequence of that assault.
|
|||||
| People v. Mason, B180724,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for carjacking in violation of Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), although the victim's truck moved forward only about one foot before stalling when defendant's accomplice attempted to drive it away; this slight movement of the truck was sufficient to satisfy the carjacking asportation requirement.
|
|||||
| Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center, H028298,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because survivor claim through which plaintiff, as decedent's successor in interest, sought damages under Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34, pleaded different injury than plaintiff's wrongful death claim brought on her own behalf, survivor claim did not relate back to date of timely filed wrongful death claim and was thus barred by statute of limitations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
