 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Carmen M., B189792,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's legitimate interest in closely monitoring a dependent minor's recovery from drug abuse supported the limited intrusion on the minor's right to privacy under Cal. Const., art. I, § 1, of a drug testing order containing the express condition that testing would occur only upon reasonable suspicion that the minor had been using drugs.
|
|||||
| People v. Anderson, A108482,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial, it was reversible error for the trial court to instruct only on felony murder and not to instruct sua sponte on second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter because the evidence did not overwhelmingly support a finding that defendant formed the intent to steal money from the victim before a companion killed the victim.
|
|||||
| People v. Celis, No. B182346,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Murder conviction under Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, could be based on defendant's conduct as an aider and abettor after another person delivered the fatal blow but before the victim died because the victim's death was a sine qua non of murder and the crime could not be complete until the victim died. The court was not required to instruct otherwise.
|
|||||
| Sagehorn v. Engle, B188323,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because principle of equitable tolling did not apply to a § 12(a)(1) action, 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(1), judgment for buyers in their action against seller of an unregistered security based on federal Securities Act of 1933 was error; seller's ability to conceal from buyers right to bring lawsuit was not present in a § 12(a)(1) action.
|
|||||
| Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., D045154, D045579,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability action brought by a married couple against an automobile manufacturer, an award of noneconomic damages to the wife, even as remitted by the trial court, was excessive, where there was compelling evidence that the jury acted out of passion and prejudice in awarding such damages to the wife.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Verizon Communications, B179370,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a corporation that delivered stock to the California State Controller in accordance with the Unclaimed Property Law, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1500-1582, had absolute immunity pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1532, subd. (b), a demurrer to the shareholders' action against the corporation alleging wrongful delivery of stock was properly sustained.
|
|||||
| In re Baby Boy M., B184199,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dependency proceedings, the juvenile court erred in holding jurisdictional and dispositional hearings when a child could not be found; because the mother testified that she gave the child to the father for him to take the child out-of-state, there was insufficient evidence that California had subject matter jurisdiction under Fam. Code, § 3421.
|
|||||
| People v. Davis, No. B184264,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to find that defendant possessed cocaine for sale in a public area within 1,000 feet of an elementary school for purposes of a sentence enhancement under Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.6, subd. (b), because the cocaine at issue was found in the garage of a private residence that was not accessible to the general public.
|
|||||
| People v. Misa, D046582,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 19, 2006, 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. |
