 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atwater Elementary School Dist. v. California Dept. of General Services, S124188,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Four-year limitation set forth in Ed. Code, § 44944, subd. (a), on the introduction of evidence relating to matters occurring more than four years before a school district filed a notice of intention to dismiss a teacher was not absolute. Equitable estoppel could apply to the statute's four-year time limitation.
|
|||||
| People v. $20,110 United States Currency, No. B191821,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment of forfeiture regarding $ 20,110 in currency found during execution of a search warrant in defendant's residence was improper under Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.4, subd. (i)(3), where the judgment indicated that the underlying criminal proceedings were ongoing and had not yet resulted in a conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Stevens, S034704,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case, there was sufficient evidence of an adequate period of watching and waiting to support a lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding. It was reasonable for jury to conclude that defendant acted to implement a plan of luring victim of opportunity into vulnerable position by creating or exploiting a false sense of security.
|
|||||
| Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement v. County of Sacramento, C052981,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although county civil service commission had jurisdiction to hear appeal regarding allegedly unauthorized temporary civil service appointment, plaintiffs failed to show that trial court erred in denying them writ relief against county based on commission's refusal to hear appeal, where plaintiffs did not make commission a party to writ proceeding.
|
|||||
| Zengen, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, S142947,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Banking customer arguably did more than just inform bank under Cal. U. Com. Code, § 11505, that it objected to payments orders, where customer's CEO told bank official that he had not authorized the payment orders, and CEO testified that, at some uncertain time, he and bank official had engaged in a very general discussion about bank being sued.
|
|||||
| Dina v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, B190432,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary dismissal of an inverse condemnation action by means of Code Civ. Proc., § 1260.040, was proper because the owners' evidence was insufficient; § 1260.040 permitted either party to move for a ruling on a legal issue affecting the determination of compensation, and the application for an order to dismiss was such a motion.
|
|||||
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. |
