|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - May 31, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Mendez, A114166,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because defendant would have been confined to state hospital as a result of a civil insanity commitment on unrelated charges, defendant's presentence confinement on felony assault charges was not the sole reason for his loss of liberty during presentence period. Therefore, Pen. Code, § 2900.5, did not authorize an award of credits for that period.
|
|
| |
Quartz of Southern California, Inc. v. Mullen Bros., Inc., G036228, G036343,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In purchasing conditional sale contracts for vehicles from a dealer, a finance company acquired no security interests because the dealer did not perfect them under Veh. Code, § 6300; thus, when the dealer went out of business, an auction company that had sold the vehicles to the dealer without first receiving payment held title to the vehicles.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tyrone W. v. Superior Court, D049824,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Bypassing reunification services for a father and child under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(6), was supported by sufficient findings because juvenile court explicitly referred to its dispositional findings which identified the parents as the persons responsible for deliberate acts that caused a deceased sibling's 11 rib fractures.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|