 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, A112591,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was undisputed that a cable service provider had a practice of requiring all subscribers to purchase its basic cable tier, which included television programming, in order to obtain FM or music service, regardless of disability, subscribers failed as a matter of law to state a violation of the Unruh Act, Civ. Code, § 51, by the provider.
|
|||||
| Limited Stores, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., A102915,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the treasury functions of a corporate taxpayer that comprised a unitary business owning retail stores both within and without California were qualitatively different from its principal business, Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25137, could be used to correct significant distortions arising from treating the full redemption price as gross receipts.
|
|||||
| Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital and Medical Center, B186238,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing at which a physician challenged a hospital's decision to deny him staff privileges was prematurely terminated by hearing officer because no hearing ever took place when physician could avail himself of the rights set forth in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.3; hearing officer's termination decision ran afoul of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2.
|
|||||
| People v. Ashraf, C052207,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because evidence that People allegedly failed to disclose -- that defendants supported or sympathized with Taliban -- was not favorable to defendants, there was no Brady violation, and thus no conceivable theory under which the Constitution required dismissal of the case under Pen. Code, § 1054.5, for the People's failure to disclose that evidence.
|
|||||
| People v. English, F049654,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. English, F049654,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's imposition of an aggravated term without jury findings on circumstances in aggravation was not a violation of defendant's rights because trial court rigorously complied with the law, and defendant's plethora of priors abundantly supported the circumstance in aggravation for numerous priors pursuant to Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| People v. Michael Sean Sandoval, E039378,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Shepherd, A114880,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No showing of good cause was made for relying on probation officer's hearsay testimony regarding out-of-court statements made by treatment program administrator in lieu of live testimony; no justification was offered for administrator's absence, and no other evidence corroborated her alleged statements that defendant smelled of alcohol consumption.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
