 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Concerned McCloud Citizens v. McCloud Community Services Dist., C050811,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agreement between a community services district and a water bottling company for the purchase and sale of spring water did not constitute "approval" of a project within the meaning of CEQA, where the agreement did not give the company any vested rights and did not legally commit the district to a definite course of action.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Superior Court, C052243,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| North Kern Water Storage Dist. v. Kern Delta Water Dist., F047706,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining the extent of a forfeiture under Cal. Const., art. X, § 2, and Wat. Code, § 1241, the trial court correctly adopted a monthly measure as a method of minimizing the forfeiture because the parties to the water rights dispute maintained monthly but not daily records regarding their historical beneficial use of water for irrigation.
|
|||||
| Calvert v. County of Yuba, C047857,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc., D048064,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff met requirements of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.40, 416.10, for service of process on out-of-state corporate defendant and presented sufficient proof of service under Code Civ. Proc., § 417.20, subd. (a), because the person who signed return receipt for summons and complaint was an employee who regularly received mail on defendant's behalf.
|
|||||
| Oroville Hospital v. Dept. of Health Services, C049827,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Parsons v. Superior Court, No. CV064670,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MARIN COUNTY, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where challenge to notice in unlawful detainer action extended beyond the face of complaint to the issue whether 30-day notice or 60-day notice was required under California's Floating Home Residency Law, trial court was to resolve issue by resorting to competent evidence, and motion to quash service of summons was proper procedure for doing this.
|
|||||
| People v. James Dylan Popular, F049564,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
