|
|
| |
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 - June 11, 2007
|
| |
Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., A111353, A112002,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an asbestos case, Code Civ. Proc., ? 377.34, did not bar damages for future economic loss or for pain and suffering, even though the injured plaintiff died after the jury award and before entry of judgment, because a valid nunc pro tunc judgment was antedated to before death. The date of that judgment determined whether ? 377.34 barred recovery.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People ex rel.Brown v. Powerex Corp., C051868,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Complaint by the California Attorney General seeking restitution, disgorgement of profits, civil penalties, and damages from a power company that allegedly received excessive payments by engaging in unfair competition and commodity manipulation schemes was barred by the filed rate doctrine under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. ? 791 et seq.
|
|
| |
People v. King, B192709,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant could not be convicted of violating the sex offender registration requirements of Pen. Code, ? 290, because his duty to register arose as a condition of probation for the offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, an unenumerated offense, and discretionary registration was not ordered in compliance with ? 290, subd. (a)(2)(E).
|
|
| |
People v. Timms, A113889,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a trial involving the beating death of a spouse, defendant was not entitled to have jury consider evidence of voluntary intoxication on the issue of whether he had a conscious disregard for life because Pen. Code, ??22, made such evidence irrelevant and in doing so did not lessen the prosecution's burden of proof or prevent defensive evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback