 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abbott Laboratories v. Franchise Tax Bd., B204210,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dividend deduction under Rev. & Tax. Code, ¿ 24402, for dividends that were declared on corporate income not taxed in California violated the commerce clause, U.S. Const., art. I, ¿ 8, cl. 3, and could not be extended to all dividends because a taxpayer's proposed revision of ¿ 24402, subd. (a), did not pass the volitional separability test.
|
|||||
| Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, E042229, E043925, E044797,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developers were entitled to rescind an agreement to transfer mitigation land to an organization that was found to be unqualified to receive it, based on failure of consideration and mistake under Civ. Code, ¿ 1689, subd. (b), impossibility, and frustration of purpose; approval was an implied condition excusing performance under Civ. Code, ¿ 1436.
|
|||||
| People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co., B208691,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a defendant failed to appear and bail was forfeited, surety was not required to file a motion to vacate forfeiture within the 180-day period set forth in Pen. Code, ¿ 1305, subd. (c)(3). It was sufficient that the defendant had been surrendered to custody in the underlying case outside the county within the 180-day period.
|
|||||
| People v. Wagner, E047167,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for assault with a semiautomatic firearm, the calendar judge did not err in denying the People's request for a continuance pursuant to Pen. Code, ¿ 1050, due to lack of available courtrooms or in dismissing the matter pursuant to Pen. Code, ¿ 1382, to avoid violating defendant's statutory speedy trial rights.
|
|||||
| Baker Manock & Jensen v. Superior Court, F056973,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm's representation of an executor as both executor and beneficiary did not warrant its disqualification because the executor had the same interests in both capacities; no conflict of interest existed under Prob. Code, ¿ 8402, because the executor sought in good faith to preserve estate assets by challenging another beneficiary's claim.
|
|||||
| Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, B206102,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local affordable housing requirement providing for a specified number of units with regulated rent levels for at least 30 years was preempted under Cal. Const., art. XI, ¿ 7, because it conflicted with Civ. Code, ¿ 1954.53, subd. (a), which permitted residential landlords, except in specified situations, to establish initial rental rates for units.
|
|||||
| Diaz v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, B206259,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Anderson, S152695,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California and federal double jeopardy principles did not bar a retrial of mistried penalty allegations charged under Pen. Code, ¿ 667.61, which encompassed only the mistried enhancements; the underlying crime of which defendant had been convicted was not a greater offense for constitutional double jeopardy purposes or under Pen. Code, ¿ 1023.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Superior Court, S152273,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a jury convicted petitioner of two counts of attempted murder, double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial of penalty allegations against petitioner. Order granting petitioner a new trial pursuant to Pen. Code, ¿ 1181, subd. (6), on some of the penalty factors was not equivalent to an acquittal.
|
|||||
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. |
