|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 28, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
In re Eduardo M., B186047,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because juvenile defendant was convicted as a principal in two assaults, he could not also be convicted as an accessory to those assaults under Pen. Code, ? 32, solely on the basis of his immediate flight from the scene of the crime and his subsequent denials of his own involvement, even if that conduct incidentally helped a co-principal to escape.
|
|
| |
Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Assn., Inc., G035851,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred by interpreting the majority requirement in Civ. Code, ? 1356, subd. (c)(4), to mean more than 50 percent of the homeowners who actually voted on a proposed amendment to the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; the statute required at least a simple majority of all of the members of the homeowners' association.
|
|
| |
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Rea, H028841,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In accordance with Pub. Util. Code, ?? 100308, 100309, which preserved the benefits and rights of county employees who transferred to a transit authority and required recognition of the employees' representatives, the existing bargaining unit was the appropriate unit within which to hold a representation election for a supervisory bargaining unit.
|
|
| |
Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman, C049525,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In approving a project for the construction of a hotel, gas station, and convenience store complex, a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, ? 21000 et seq., where the city relied on an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration for an earlier project to build a motel on the property.
|
|
| |
Schneider v. California Coastal Com., B186149,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Neither Pub. Resources Code, ? 30251, nor county's local coastal program supported unwritten policy to protect scenic views of coast from ocean-based vantage points. Thus, in deciding whether to issue coastal development permit, California Coastal Commission could not consider whether development would impact views of ocean-based vantage points.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback