 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christie v. City of El Centro, D044792,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a judge was disqualified under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6), at the time he granted city's motion for nonsuit of arrestee's false arrest and wrongful imprisonment action because he had discussed the case with a previously disqualified judge, nonsuit ruling was null and void and had to be vacated regardless of a showing of prejudice.
|
|||||
| Kristine M. v. David P., A109655,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating parental rights and attendant obligation to support child was void as breach of public policy and as act in excess of court's jurisdiction because parents could not ask court to terminate father's parental rights pursuant to their stipulation and as matter of convenience after paternity was established under Uniform Parentage Act.
|
|||||
| Placer County Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Com., C047697,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), not Nevada County LAFCO, had jurisdiction over planning matters under Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act because Gov. Code, § 56387, gave principal county jurisdiction over spheres of influence and service reviews of multicounty districts within neighboring counties.
|
|||||
| ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., B179537, B181354,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requirement in Civ. Code, § 2527, that drug claims processors provide to their clients drug processing cost reports violated processors' free speech rights under Cal. Const., art. I, § 2. Statute was not narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling state interest, nor did it have the least restrictive impact on processors' free speech rights.
|
|||||
| Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B184852,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's TRO prohibiting former employer from commencing action to enforce noncompetition agreement or restrictive covenant against former employees in any court other than the trial court or in federal court was improper because no exceptional circumstance was demonstrated that outweighed threat to principles of judicial restraint and comity.
|
|||||
| Carson Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd., B180308,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a municipal rent control board used an improper method of calculating a rent increase, the trial court erred in setting the amount of rent; because Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (f), did not permit the trial court to limit the board's discretion in this way, a remand was necessary for the board to apply the proper method of analysis.
|
|||||
| People v. Murphy, C046923,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Souza v. Westlands Water Dist., F045293, F046478,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court misapplied the third-party-beneficiary doctrine because agreement between water district and tenants contained no promise or engagement by the water district to follow any regulation to obtain adequate guaranty from tenants. Moreover, there was no evidence that the tenants had any intent that the promise would benefit the landowners.
|
|||||
| Torres v. Torres, B179146,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Principal created valid power of attorney, even though in using the statutory form she placed an X instead of her initials on the line conferring the powers. Prob. Code, § 4123, did not require the principal to use her initials to designate the powers she was granting; any meaningful expression of the principal's intent would suffice.
|
|||||
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. |
