 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Port Hueneme v. Oxnard Harbor Dist., No. B185725,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Harbor district's acquisition of railway was not void because Harb. & Nav. Code, § 6077.5, expressly authorized district to acquire railway property without obtaining prior consent of city in which the railroad land was located. Nothing in the record suggested that the property was used for any purpose other than those described in § 6077.5.
|
|||||
| Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court, D048782,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked authority to order parties in a complex civil action to attend and pay for private mediation because such an order conflicted with the statutory scheme pertaining to mediation as set forth in the Civil Action Mediation Program, Code Civ. Proc., § 1775 et seq., which emphasized the voluntary nature of mediation.
|
|||||
| Patricia Adkins Ins. Agency, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., C050591,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Independent contractor agreement between insurance company and its agents that contained trade secret and nonsolicitation provisions did not provide company with authority to impose trade secret and nonsolicitation provisions on agents' state-licensed employees, as such provisions were outside the realm of binding company to insurance obligations.
|
|||||
| People v. Miller, G033762,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following reversal of decision to deny suppression of drug evidence under Pen. Code, § 1538.5, the prosecution was not entitled to further hearing because further hearing would not have revealed additional pertinent details as to why a deputy stopped the car defendant was driving or whether the officer was aware of defendant's probation status.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Edwards), D049026,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly placed on probation for nonviolent drug possession offenses (NDPOs), even though he was already on probation for nonqualifying offenses, because he was not subject to one of the exceptions set forth in Pen. Code, § 1210.1. His ineligibility for probation on the nonqualifying offenses did not make him ineligible on the NDPOs.
|
|||||
| Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. & Ken Ryerson, A114506,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's petition to the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration of an award of benefits was timely under Lab. Code, § 5903; although the petition was filed more than 20 days after the original award, it was filed within 20 days of an amended award that changed the amount awarded and therefore was not merely clerical.
|
|||||
| State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. , A114505,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in applying the schedule for rating permanent disabilities that was in effect prior to January 1, 2005; because no reasoning supported a physician's prediction of permanent disability made before that date, the new rating schedule should have been applied pursuant to Lab. Code, § 4660, subd. (d).
|
|||||
| Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist., F049966,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 5, 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. |
