 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. B206957, No. B212254,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Initiative measure that amended a county's general plan and zoning regulations to permit development near a county airport was not preempted by the State Aeronautics Act (SAA), Pub. Util. Code, § 21001 et seq., because the SAA did not fully occupy the field of land use regulation near airports but expressly preserved local authority.
|
|||||
| In re FairWageLaw, G040506,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated a dissenting shareholder's right to due process in a Corp. Code, § 1904, voluntary dissolution action by adjudicating the corporation's claim against him for litigation expenses without notice or a hearing; he was not named as a defendant, the petition sought no relief against him, and he had filed a separate civil action.
|
|||||
| In re Johnson, F055768,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disciplinary findings made under the authority of Pen. Code, § 5054, as to an inmate's unauthorized possession of two items did not implicate Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) due process rights and thus were not reviewable on habeas corpus because no custody credits were lost, although parole decisions could be adversely impacted.
|
|||||
| People v. Daniels, H032497,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1), extended to a taking and asportation of an incapacitated person to commit rape where the perpetrator used only the amount of force necessary to effect the taking and asportation of an incapacitated person, rather than "something more" than that amount of force.
|
|||||
| People v. Perez, No. B213114,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A condition of probation that prohibited defendant from attending any court hearing or being within 500 feet of any court in which he was neither a defendant nor under subpoena was overbroad. The condition imposed unnecessary restrictions on defendant's right to access the courts and government offices.
|
|||||
| Wynn v. Superior Court, F056975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 4, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had the authority to adjudicate the facts concerning a possible biological relationship between plaintiff and her biological mother. Furthermore, if the trial court were to determine plaintiff's original birth certificate was not accurate regarding her parentage, then it was obligated to order the issuance of a new birth certificate.
|
|||||
| Drummond v. Desmarais, H031659,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 5, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, was properly granted as to a claim that an attorney maliciously prosecuted two suits against former clients because the clients did not obtain a favorable termination and thus could not prevail; voluntary dismissal after an unfavorable appellate decision was not a termination on the merits.
|
|||||
| People v. Nichols, C057665,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 5, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence of 28 years to life for failure to register a changed address as a sex offender under former Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (f)(1), with three prior serious felony convictions was not cruel or unusual punishment under federal or California law; the sentence was not grossly disproportionate because defendant concealed his whereabouts for months.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
