 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Jason J., D054188,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Acosta, E046956,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant committed a lewd and lascivious act on a minor in Riverside County, California, after having committed a similar act on another minor in San Bernardino County, defendant could be tried for both offenses in a unitary trial in Riverside County, thus subjecting him to Pen. Code, ¿ 667.61, subd. (e)(5).
|
|||||
| People v. Bhasin, E046137,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported convictions for violating Pen. Code, ¿¿ 132, 134, by obtaining an official document using false information and giving that document to counsel for use in cross-examination; the document was offered into evidence under ¿ 132 and was prepared by defendant for purposes of ¿ 134, although he did not physically create it.
|
|||||
| People v. McWhorter, S068536,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder trial under Pen. Code, ¿ 187, defendant's second taped statement was not the tainted product of a prior that was statement excluded as coerced because there were sufficient indices of attenuation, including that more than a week transpired and that the second statement was furnished in an effort to recant the earlier confession.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Nurie, A121719,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a custody dispute regarding whether California or Pakistan had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the California court that dissolved the marriage had initial home state jurisdiction, it never lost jurisdiction, and its order granting custody to husband was valid when entered and remained valid.
|
|||||
| In re R.P., B208425,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probation condition prohibiting defendant juvenile from possessing any "dangerous or deadly weapon" was not unconstitutionally vague. "Dangerous or deadly weapon" had a plain commonsense meaning sufficient to put defendant on notice of the conduct prohibited by the probation condition.
|
|||||
| M.S. v. O.S., D053996,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney fees that an Indian tribe paid directly to attorneys on behalf of a father should not have been included in the father's income under Fam. Code, ¿ 4058, subd. (a), for purposes of calculating child support, even though they were included in his federal income tax, because the fees were not part of the father's regular income or cash flow.
|
|||||
| People v. Neuman, E044869,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying a Wheeler/Batson challenge based on exclusion of jurors from different ethnic groups, finding no prima facie case of discrimination because people of color, as such, did not constitute a cognizable group; moreover, the defense did not develop the record sufficiently to show other facts supportive of the challenge.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, E045200,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: High-level county employee had a cause of action for breach of a confidentiality provision in a severance agreement because, while the county might have had a duty to disclose the agreement itself, it had no such duty to disclose the underlying circumstances. Any First Amendment right to make disclosures was waived by the confidentiality provision.
|
|||||
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. |
