 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League, B177908,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying an anti-SLAPP motion to strike filed by animal rights activist and organization; restraining orders under Code Civ. Proc., § 527.8, could be directed only to natural persons, and city failed to present prima facie evidence of any threat of violence city employee's workplace where activist had protested outside his home.
|
|||||
| In re Microsoft I-V Cases, A109057,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., § 384, subd. (b), did not apply to a judgment approving a settlement agreement that included its own provisions for distribution of any unpaid residue. The trial court properly refused to apply statute to a judgment approving a settlement in a class action that provided for cy pres distribution to eligible schools.
|
|||||
| People v. Bhakta, B177406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City attorney had standing to bring a red light abatement action in the name of the People of the State of California against owners of a motel allegedly used for prostitution; the action was brought under the authority of Pen. Code, § 11226, which grouped city attorneys with district attorneys as a distinct category from ordinary residents.
|
|||||
| People v. Carmichael, A106894,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where defendant was convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine, sale of methamphetamine, and conspiracy, the trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay a court security fee under Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1), because defendant's crimes were committed before the effective date of the statute.
|
|||||
| Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm, B181029,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a malicious prosecution action, a defendant was properly allowed to join other defendants' special motion to strike because malicious prosecution qualified for treatment under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, as a matter of law. Thus, it was not necessary for the joining defendant to present admissible evidence to shift the burden to plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP, B179383,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice action against a law firm and its partner, the limitations period under Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, was tolled while a former associate of the firm continued to represent the bank in the same specific subject matter in which the alleged malpractice occurred.
|
|||||
| City and County of San Francisco v. Ballard , A107227, A108569,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's claim that 84-unit building was public nuisance because its partial sprinkler system was not in compliance with fire prevention statutes for high-rise structures failed because building did not qualify as high-rise under Health & Saf. Code, § 13210, subd. (b), and thus was not subject to fire prevention requirements for high-rise structures.
|
|||||
| Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., B176953,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumers were entitled to summary adjudication in a false advertising case because there was sufficient manufacturing of components abroad to make representations of U.S. origin deceptive under Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17500, 17533.7, and Civ. Code, § 1770, subd. (a)(4); some parts were substantially made, manufactured, or produced abroad.
|
|||||
| Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera, A108712,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly granted in contractor's defamation action against a city attorney because the official duty privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (a), applied to the attorney's statements, which he made in a speech at a dinner attended in his official capacity and which concerned the city's litigation against the contractor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
