This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Opinion of Lockyer
State and counties are responsible for paying for reports and exams of defendants in civil and criminal proceedings.
Government May 17, 2004
Donoghue v. Doherty
Order
May 17, 2004
Prasertphong v. Arizona
Order
May 17, 2004
Roper v. Simmons
Order
May 17, 2004
Florida v. Armstrong
Order
May 17, 2004
Mason v. American Tobacco Co.
Order
May 17, 2004
Goughnour v. Cooper
Order
May 17, 2004
Perry v. United States
Order
May 17, 2004
Gilbertson v. Albright
Order
May 17, 2004
Embury v. King
Amended opinion
May 17, 2004
Tritchler v. County of Lake
Federal court had jurisdiction to review state law claims of employment discrimination after federal claims had been dismissed.
Civil Procedure May 17, 2004
U.S. v. Iniguez
Order
May 17, 2004
Padash v. INS
Child Status Protection Act prevents plaintiff from 'aging out' of visa category due to delays in adjudication.
Immigration May 17, 2004
Silva-Calderon v. Ashcroft
Court does not have jurisdiction to review procedural due process claim that BIA could have competently considered.
Immigration May 17, 2004
Gerawan Farming Inc. v. Lyons
Order
May 14, 2004
Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
Coverage limits contained in insurance provision written in vague language and placed near end of policy may not be enforceable.
Insurance May 14, 2004
U.S. v. Hickey
Because none of defendant's contentions raise colorable claim under collateral order doctrine, appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 12, 2004
Middletown v. McNeil
State court did not unreasonably apply federal law in finding there was no reasonable likelihood jury was misled by faulty instruction.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 12, 2004
Johnson v. California
U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review decision of state supreme court to remand for further proceedings.
Civil Procedure May 12, 2004
Scarborough v. Principi
Attorney-fees application under Equal Access to Justice Act may be amended after deadline to allege government's position was not substantially justified.
Civil Procedure May 12, 2004
Dretke v. Haley
Federal court faced with claim of actual innocence must first address nondefaulted claims for comparable relief to excuse procedural default.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 12, 2004
Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
Petitioners' wrongful termination cases are governed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1658 because they arose under Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Employment Law May 12, 2004
U.S. v. Navarro-Vargas
Charge given by district court to grand jury did not deny defendant his Fifth Amendment right to unfettered judgment of grand jurors.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 12, 2004
U.S. v. Navidad-Marcos
District court improperly relied solely on abstract of judgment of prior conviction to enhance defendant's sentence.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 12, 2004
U.S. v. Shipsey
Amended opinion
May 12, 2004
Powers v. The Rug Barn
May 12, 2004
South FL Water Mgmt v. Miccosukee Tribe
Order
May 12, 2004
Kowalski v. Tesmer
Order
May 11, 2004
Retail Flooring Dealers of America Inc. v. Beaulieu of America
Court erred in awarding sanctions against plaintiff because defendant failed to comply with safe harbor provision.
Civil Procedure May 11, 2004
U.S. v. Manion
Jury properly instructed that defendant can be convicted for defendant's own acts constituting mail fraud if defendant knowingly participated in scheme to defraud.
Criminal Law and Procedure May 11, 2004