|
|
| |
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 13 - July 17, 2006
|
| |
California Assn. of Private Special Education Schools v. Department of Education, B181843,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Ed. Code, ? 56366.6, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, ? 3068, the Department of Education could suspend certifications of nonpublic, nonsectarian schools that provided services to disabled children without a prior hearing because there was a compelling interest in ensuring that such schools were operated in a safe and lawful fashion.
|
|
| |
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., S124739,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Clients who resided in California could maintain an invasion of privacy action brought against a financial services company to enjoin undisclosed recording of telephone calls made to a branch office in Georgia, although such recording was lawful in Georgia, because the application of Pen. Code, ? 632, would not severely impair Georgia's interests.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. McCann, B184262,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, could not possibly have been guilty of practicing medicine without a license because he had a valid license to practice medicine, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Pen. Code, ? 851.8.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Estrada, C047785,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case involving charges of attempted robbery, burglary, and theft, the trial court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by soliciting assurances from prospective jurors that, if chosen, they would not engage in jury nullification because it was the judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who would not follow instructions impartially.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Blum v. Superior Court, No. B189560,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a wrongful termination case in which an employee asserted violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, ? 12900 et seq., the employee's attorney could verify the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) complaint for the employee by subscribing his or her own name to the DFEH complaint.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback