 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Branner v. Regents of University of California, C061476,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a motion to reconsider an order in a discrimination case lacked the affidavit required by Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1008, subd. (a), it was not a valid motion and did not extend the time to appeal under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e); thus, the notice of appeal, filed after 60 days, was untimely under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(2).
|
|||||
| In re H.C., H033669,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation conditions that prohibited a minor from associating with any known probationer, parolee, or gang member and from frequenting areas of gang related activity failed to meet the due process requirement of adequate notice because a violation could occur without his knowledge that he was engaging in such an association or was in such an area.
|
|||||
| In re T.S., C059718,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to apply an exception to adoption under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(vi)(II); although the minor's Indian tribe had identified guardianship as the permanent plan, there were no appropriate guardians, and an adoptive placement with a member of the tribe had been found.
|
|||||
| People v. Blount, D052147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Having accepted the terms of a plea agreement in a child neglect case, the trial court was bound under Pen. Code, ¿ 1192.5, to impose the stipulated sentence and could not alter it; the statutory procedure for recalling a sentence under Pen. Code, ¿ 1170, subd. (d), did not give the trial court authority to override the terms of the plea bargain.
|
|||||
| People v. Fields, D053080,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although cross-examination of expert witnesses in a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 6600 et seq., as to a polygraph examination might have been unduly limited because Evid. Code, ¿ 351.1, did not bar such evidence, any error was harmless because the defense presented ample evidence on the same topics.
|
|||||
| People v. Hudson, C059154,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a kidnapping case, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 318 because the instruction did not lessen the prosecution's standard of proof by compelling the jury to accept inconsistent out-of-court statements as true. The jury also was informed of its prerogative to ignore any evidence that it found untrustworthy.
|
|||||
| People v. Osborne, A121195,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A police officer was justified in conducting a patsearch of defendant, where the officer reasonably suspected that defendant was involved in burglarizing or stripping a car. Under the totality of circumstances, the patsearch was supported by a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
