 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, B203093,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Resident of an apartment complex pleaded a cause of action for public nuisance under Civ. Code, ¿¿ 3479, 3480, 3493, sufficient to withstand a demurrer when she alleged that the presence of secondhand smoke interfered with her use and enjoyment of the outdoor facilities by aggravating her allergies and asthma; special injury under ¿ 3493 was shown.
|
|||||
| Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., D050112,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment on car purchaser's state law deceptive advertising claims was error because provisions of federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 49 U.S.C. ¿ 32901 et seq., that regulated fuel economy estimates and labels did not preempt every lawsuit that challenged any statement an automobile manufacturer made regarding fuel economy.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. DuFauchard v. United States Financial Management, Inc., D052320,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Corporations Commissioner had authority under Gov. Code, ¿¿ 11180, 11181, subd. (e), and Fin. Code, ¿¿ 12305, 12106, subds. (a)(1), (b), to investigate a suspected Prorater Law, Fin. Code, ¿ 12000 et seq., violation involving conduct in California pertaining to nonresidents; the presumption against extraterritoriality did not apply.
|
|||||
| Pine Terrace Apartments, L.P. v. Windscape, LLC, F054609,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action alleging latent construction defects, a cross-complaint by seller-developers against subcontractors was not barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 337.15, because the cross-complaint incorporated by reference the complaint's allegations of willful misconduct, within the exemption in ¿ 337.15, subd. (f).
|
|||||
| In re Gaul, B209638,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of parole under Pen. Code, ¿ 3041, was reversed because the evidence did not support a finding that the inmate currently posed a threat to public safety, even though there was "some evidence" to support a description of the commitment offense (second degree murder-for-hire) as carried out with a callous disregard for the victim's suffering.
|
|||||
| Ameriloan v. Superior Court, No. B203548,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mossman v. City of Oakdale, F054983,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrator did not fail to decide an issue within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1283.4, in an award indicating that an employee was to be reinstated and made whole; although the award did not order reinstatement into a specific position or calculate lost wages and benefits, clarification could be obtained by remanding to the arbitrator.
|
|||||
| People v. Harbert, A118186,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was abundant evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant knew he had struck a human being, the trial court did not err in instructing on the knowledge requirement of Veh. Code, ¿ 20001, with CALJIC No. 12.70; defendant's knowledge could be imputed based in part on evidence of defendant's post-accident conduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Stanphill, C056038,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where victim's unsworn hearsay statement to law enforcement officer that tied defendant to victim's battery was admissible as a spontaneous statement under Evid. Code, ¿ 1240, defendant was not denied his U.S. Const., 6th Amend., right to confront and cross-examine victim at his probation revocation hearing because no further inquiry was required.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
