|
|
| |
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 - July 14, 2009
|
| |
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 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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback