 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, S123659,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county's zone district and helicopter ordinances were not preempted by Pub. Resources Code, § 4516.5, subd. (d), or impliedly preempted by California's general forestry law. The zone district ordinance did not conflict with state law simply because it may have had the effect of placing some trees, at least temporarily, off limits to logging.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Hume, G036141,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in placing the burden of proof on an objecting party to establish that the appraisals contained in a conservator's inventory were erroneous; the statutory structure indicated that the burden of proof in any hearing on objections was on the objector, who was the party seeking relief within the meaning of Evid. Code, § 500.
|
|||||
| Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, D046822,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandamus under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, was an appropriate remedy for an inmate who sought compensation for lost personal property; the action was not subject to the claims presentation requirement of the California Tort Claims Act because the loss of the property was the result of governmental misconduct.
|
|||||
| Firestone v. Hoffman, B183184,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action on a note, the lender's Canadian tax returns were admissible because they were relevant to a novation defense. They were not privileged because neither Civ. Code, § 1799.1a, nor Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17530.5, created a privilege shielding a litigant from discovery of his own tax returns or making those returns inadmissible.
|
|||||
| Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co., F047649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pomegranate grower's complaint, which alleged that various businesses obtained his crop in transactions with a commission merchant and kept some proceeds received for his account, sufficiently alleged a subagency relationship under Civ. Code, §§ 2349, 2351, and stated claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and negligence.
|
|||||
| People v. Brendlin, S123133,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a deputy effected a traffic stop without any indication that defendant, the passenger, was the subject of his investigation or show of authority, defendant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the driver submitted to the deputy's authority and stopped the vehicle; thus, defendant was not entitled to suppress evidence of drugs.
|
|||||
| People v. Saunders, S122744,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because lack of a front license plate was legitimate basis for a traffic stop under Veh. Code, § 5200, defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as a passenger were not violated when he was ordered out of vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of a concealed weapon, and he was not entitled to suppress the evidence under Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (i).
|
|||||
| People v. Schoppe-Rico, A104363,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of carrying a loaded, concealed firearm while he was an active participant in a criminal street gang, in violation of Pen. Code, §§ 12025, subds. (a), (b)(3), 12031, subd. (a)(2)(C), regardless of whether the firearm offenses were connected to his gang participation; proof of such a connection was not required.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
