 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguiar v. Superior Court, No. B208614,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The eligibility of employees for coverage under the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), L.A. Admin. Code, ¿ 10.37 et seq., could not be limited to those who worked 20 hours a month or more on city contracts because that limitation directly conflicted with the LWO's articulated remedial purpose of raising wages for low wage service workers.
|
|||||
| People ex rel Brown v. iMergent, Inc., No. B201302,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Seller Assisted Marketing Plan Act, Civ. Code, ¿ 1812.200 et seq., applied to sellers who represented to prospective purchasers that it was possible to earn incomes exceeding the cost of the products and services; such representations fell within the definition in Civ. Code, ¿ 1812.201, subd. (a), and this definition was not void for vagueness.
|
|||||
| People v. Graff, B203935,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's due process right to notice of charges under Cal. Const., art. I, ¿ 14, was violated by the assertion at trial of Pen. Code, ¿ 288, charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing; because the evidence supported their dismissal, Pen. Code, ¿ 739, barred reasserting them, and a constructive amendment was improper under Pen. Code, ¿ 1009.
|
|||||
| San Diego Unified School District v. County of San Diego, D052082,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 337.15, did not bar an action seeking recovery of environmental remediation costs incurred because of an inactive landfill constructed and operated more than 10 years before the action was brought; the complaint sufficiently alleged theories other than latent construction defects, including express or implied equitable indemnity.
|
|||||
| In re E.W., E045896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a mother's parental rights to her two children were terminated, any error in sending ICWA notices as to one child but not the other was harmless; because the children had the same father, and because tribal investigations determined that the first child was not an Indian child, the second child was also not an Indian child.
|
|||||
| In re Vasquez, D051015,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Governor of California erred in reversing a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for release on parole, where there was no evidence to support the Governor's ultimate conclusion that petitioner was unsuitable for parole because he still posed an unreasonable risk to public safety.
|
|||||
| Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., A116847, A118116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., A122022,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly found on employee's claim for unpaid continuation wages under Lab. Code, ¿ 203, that ¿ 203 penalties were not restitution within meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 17203; penalties under ¿ 203 were not imposed as compensation for labor of employee, but were triggered by employer's willful failure to timely pay wages already earned.
|
|||||
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. |
