 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| Rondon v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., H030292,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
