Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. [1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to ...
So the California courts allow a defendant represented by court-appointed counsel to directly communicate with the trial judge in the context of a Marsden motion, and only in such a context. A Marsden motion is a formal request made by a criminal defendant to the court. The court hears arguments on the motion from the defendant and the attorney ...
The law stated a man is guilty of rape-by-fraud if he impersonates a woman's husband in order to get her consent. The woman in this case was not married, and Morales had impersonated her boyfriend, not her husband. Because of this one technicality, the appellate court overturned Morales' rape-by-trickery conviction in People v.
The soon-to-be bride and groom are still confused on whether or not they accidentally got married. "We honestly aren’t sure," Lushan admits. "In the ceremony room we told him this wasn't what we ...
Speaking to the New York Post, the 25-year-old bride said that she was supposed to have an “adults-only” ceremony to wed her groom, Joshua Joe, aside from their nieces and nephews. However ...
The groom was a Filipino of Spanish ancestry, while the bride was an indigenous Mexican; however, Guerin stated that he would have granted the licence even if the bride were white. [7] In August 1931, Roldan and Rogers's application for a marriage licence was rejected by the Los Angeles County clerk.
Caroline Herrling pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Among her victims was Robert Tascon. She sold his Encino home out from under him for $1.5 million.
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.