 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, C049717,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of juvenile inmate's petition to file a late claim under Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (b)(1), was error where a secretary in his attorney's office erroneously removed the six-month public entity statute of limitations from the attorney's calendaring system because attorney's reliance on his existing office calendar system was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co., B170079,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that insured's bankruptcy proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 524(g) conclusively determined the insured's liability for present and future asbestos claims against it because the bankruptcy confirmation proceedings were not an actual trial of the insured's liability triggering its excess insurers' indemnification obligations.
|
|||||
| Gentry v. Superior Court, B169805,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable under Civ. Code, § 1668, because it was not found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes predictably involved small amounts of damages and large numbers of consumers were cheated out of individually small sums of money.
|
|||||
| Moran v. Endres, B176874,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied attorney fees to defendants after their special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, was sustained as to only one of many causes of action. Defendants obtained a ruling which in every practical sense meant nothing; that did not entitle them to fees.
|
|||||
| People v. Allegheny Casualty Co., A107069,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The technical requirements mandated by Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a), for bail forfeiture were not satisfied, where the trial court did not make an express declaration, made while it was in public session, that bail was forfeited.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith & Taffola, G034443,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
