 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gilman v. Dalby, C050294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which injured person gave plaintiff a lien against any recovery that he might receive in litigation to recover damages for his injuries, plaintiff's allegations against defendants were insufficient to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. That defendants were aware of the lien was not enough to create a fiduciary duty.
|
|||||
| Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt, S163577,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debt collector recovering on a dishonored check could not recover both a service charge under Civ. Code, § 1719, subd. (a)(1), and prejudgment interest under Civ. Code, § 3287; the legislative history and structure of § 1719 implicitly precluded an award of prejudgment interest, and the remedies prescribed in § 1719 were not shown to be inadequate.
|
|||||
| People v. Peyton, E044069,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of, inter alia, one count of committing a lewd act with duress, fear or force on a child under the age of 14, the lewd act conviction had to be reversed because it constituted an additional charge not pled in the amended complaint to which defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing.
|
|||||
| In re Antilia, G041453,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner, who had been convicted of murder, satisfied the requirements for constructive filing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted and his notice of appeal was deemed to constitute a timely filed petition for writ of mandate under Pen. Code, § 1405, subd. (j).
|
|||||
| Lin v. City of Pleasanton, A121147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Flores, F055859,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be convicted of violating both Pen. Code, §§ 4501.1, 4501.5, by spitting on a correctional officer because § 4501.1, prohibiting a battery by a prisoner on a correctional officer by gassing with human bodily fluids or substances, was a necessarily included offense of § 4501.5, prohibiting battery by a prisoner on a nonprisoner.
|
|||||
| People v. Hart, C057652,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the jury could have found that attempted unpremeditated murder under Pen. Code, §§ 21a, 187, subd. (a), and not attempted premeditated murder, was a natural and probable consequence of a robbery, the court should have instructed the jury to determine whether premeditation and deliberation was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery.
|
|||||
| People v. Luansing, B210413,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subjecting defendant, who had been convicted of oral copulation with a person under the age of 16 in violation of Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2), to mandatory sex offender registration violated defendant's equal protection rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Moore, B207616,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, August 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations where a nonprofit child development agency was not a "victim" of his wrongdoing; county agency fit more readily into definition of a "victim," and it did not learn any facts regarding defendant's possible crimes until it received development agency's referral.
|
|||||
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. |
