 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bougere v. County of Los Angeles, B183930,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a county sheriff was carrying out a law enforcement function in setting policies pertaining to the placement of inmates at the county jail, the sheriff was acting as a state official and was immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an action brought by an inmate who sued the county for injuries that were inflicted by other inmates.
|
|||||
| Bridgeman v. McPherson, C050528,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The California Legislature could authorize voting by facsimile (fax) for citizens outside the country, and could require fax voters to waive their right to a secret ballot under Elec. Code, § 3103.5, without violating the secret ballot guarantee of Cal. Const., art. II, § 7 because voting by fax was a reasonable measure to facilitate voting.
|
|||||
| Carpenter v. Superior Court, A112761,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mental examination order in a personal injury case, which stated that standardized written psychological tests of emotional and cognitive functioning were to be used, did not comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, because the order did not identify the specific tests to be used during the mental examination.
|
|||||
| People v. Jordan, H029487,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that sentence was unauthorized because five-year enhancement was improperly stayed in violation of Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1), was cognizable on appeal; in agreeing to waive jury trial right in exchange for maximum 15-year sentence, he did not agree his waiver was conditioned on court staying one of two five-year enhancements.
|
|||||
| Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, B188106,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a class representative asserted causes of action against a mouthwash manufacturer for unfair business practices and false advertising, because of the changes in the law brought about by Proposition 64, it was necessary that the class members suffer injury in fact and lose money or property as a result of the violation.
|
|||||
| In re A.U., D047847,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because notice to a dependent child's prospective tribes as required by 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a), Welf. & Inst. Code, § 294, subd. (c), and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1439(f), was not provided before the mother's parental rights were terminated, a remand for compliance with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act was necessary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
