|
|
| |
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 - July 11 - July 12, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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 |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback