Fear Not Law Unpublished Published

CA Pub. Decisions

California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal published (citable) opinions.
2,656 opinions · page 25 of 100 · 20 per page
  1. In re J.L., Part-II
    Feb 26, 2011
    J.L. appeals from the juvenile court's adjudication sustaining allegations he committed four lewd and lascivious acts with three children, his cousins. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); subsequent statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless note…
  2. In re J.L., Part-I
    Feb 26, 2011
    J.L. appeals from the juvenile court's adjudication sustaining allegations he committed four lewd and lascivious acts with three children, his cousins. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); subsequent statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless note…
  3. PEOPLE v. LABORA
    Feb 26, 2011
    Pursuant to Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(10),[1] the People appeal the judgment entered against defendant and respondent Jose Luis Labora. They contend the judgment was a result of judicial plea bargaining. We determine that the People have standing and judicial plea …
  4. PEOPLE v. INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO
    Feb 26, 2011
    Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (hereafter the surety) appeals an order denying its motion to set aside the forfeiture of a bail bond. It contends that the bond was exonerated by operation of law, pursuant to Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a), and that the cour…
  5. CHINO COMMERCIAL BANK v. PETERS,
    Feb 26, 2011
    Appellant Brian D. Peters is the victim of a Nigerian-style email scam. He agreed that his corporation would receive money supposedly owed to a gentleman in Malaysia, and would then pay that money out at the gentleman's direction, in return for a 15 percent fee. His corporati…
  6. PEOPLE v. CHRISTIANA
    Feb 26, 2011
    Defendant John Thomas Christiana appeals from orders following special proceedings to determine competency (Pen. Code,[1] § 1368) and to authorize involuntary administration of psychotropic medication (§ 1370). He argues that (1) he had a constitutional right to testify at his …
  7. In re B.F
    Feb 26, 2011
    Mother Sarah F. appeals the juvenile court's order granting a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 827 petition and thus authorizing the release of Sarah's court-ordered psychological evaluation. The petition was brought by C.D. and her husband, S.D. (together, the D.…
  8. PEOPLE v. NELSON Part-III
    Feb 26, 2011
    In his appeal and habeas petition, John Paul Nelson challenges his conviction of premeditated attempted murder with a finding that he personally discharged a firearm. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant's contention that his constitutional right to c…
  9. PEOPLE v. NELSON Part-II
    Feb 26, 2011
    In his appeal and habeas petition, John Paul Nelson challenges his conviction of premeditated attempted murder with a finding that he personally discharged a firearm. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant's contention that his constitutional right to c…
  10. PEOPLE v. NELSON Part-I
    Feb 26, 2011
    In his appeal and habeas petition, John Paul Nelson challenges his conviction of premeditated attempted murder with a finding that he personally discharged a firearm. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant's contention that his constitutional right to c…
  11. PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ Part-II
    Feb 26, 2011
    Roberto Canas-Fuente (Canas) killed Fernando Morales, the boyfriend of appellant Perla Isabel Gonzalez (Perla), during a fight between Morales and Canas. Morales, along with Perla, his accomplice, ambushed Canas as he was picking up his daughter at a street corner. Canas at the t…
  12. PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ Part-I
    Feb 26, 2011
    Roberto Canas-Fuente (Canas) killed Fernando Morales, the boyfriend of appellant Perla Isabel Gonzalez (Perla), during a fight between Morales and Canas. Morales, along with Perla, his accomplice, ambushed Canas as he was picking up his daughter at a street corner. Canas at the t…
  13. ADVANCED NETWORK, INC v. PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY
    Feb 26, 2011
    This is a dispute over insurance coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) issued to Advanced Network, Inc. (ANI). On appeal, Peerless contends the court erred by finding an underlying action for the replacement of cash stole…
  14. PEOPLE v. ATENCIO
    Feb 26, 2011
    Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This case deals with the vexing issue of when one physical act can constitute multiple criminal â€
  15. CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
    Feb 26, 2011
    We conclude here that Revenue and Taxation Code section 19138,[1] a corporate tax penalty provision for understating such taxes by more than $1,000,000, is just that‑‑a penalty‑‑and therefore not subject to the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for a  
  16. TAYLOR v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC
    Feb 26, 2011
    Plaintiff and appellant David Taylor (Taylor) brought an action against his employer, defendant and respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, penalties for missed meal and rest periods, and other related claims. UPS successful…
  17. ENNABE v MANOSA
    Feb 26, 2011
    A modification decision.
  18. ENNABE v. MANOSA
    Feb 26, 2011
    Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c)[1] provides broad immunity from civil liability for a social host who â€
  19. In re X.S
    Feb 26, 2011
    Matthew M. (father), the biological father of X.S., appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court declared his son a dependent child of the court based in part on a finding against father under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and ordered t…
  20. HALL v. KALFAYAN
    Feb 26, 2011
    In this case, Court conclude that a prospective beneficiary of a will cannot maintain a cause of action for legal malpractice against the attorney who drafted the will but did not have it executed before the death of the testator.
Prev122232425262728100Next
Lean category · served in 18 ms · full site view