 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., B175242,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 340.9, did not revive a claim against an insurer for damages resulting from the Northridge earthquake because there was no viable claim to revive after the insured inspected the property, determined that the damage was below the deductible, and withdrew its claim. The withdrawal had the impact of failing to file a claim.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Burkle, B181878,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly vacated its provisional order sealing pleadings in divorce proceeding because Fam. Code, ¿ 2024.6, was a constitutionally impermissible burden on the U.S. Const., 1st Amend., right of public access to court records. Fam. Code, ¿ 2024.6, was neither narrowly tailored to serve privacy interest, nor was it least restrictive means.
|
|||||
| National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. v. Superior Court, D046692,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer's payment made pursuant to Lab. Code, ¿ 226.7, for failure to provide a meal or rest period to its employees was an obligation created by statute, other than a penalty; therefore, it was governed by the three-year statute of limitations of Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 338, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Utility Consumers' Action Network, Inc. v. AT&T Broadband of Southern Cal., Inc., B179348,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment for cable internet service providers in consumer advocacy group's unfair competition action challenging late fee liquidated damages provision in providers' service agreements. Reasonable endeavor test did not require both parties to a form contract to expressly negotiate amount of liquidated damages.
|
|||||
| Krontz v. City of San Diego, D045332,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First Amendment was not violated when a city temporarily suspended a permit for a nude dancing establishment, following repeated violations of no-touch and six-foot rules, because the suspension was a punishment, not an unconstitutional prior restraint. The permit holder did not challenge the ordinance as vague or lacking procedural safeguards.
|
|||||
| People v. Jablonski, S041630,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pretrial statement was not rendered involuntary under the Fifth Amendment by continued interrogation after a murder defendant repeatedly invoked his right to counsel because the circumstances were not coercive or harsh and defendant made no incriminating statement that could be attributed to a claim that his statement could not be used against him.
|
|||||
| San Bernardino Associated Governments v. Superior Court, E037468,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenge to a local transportation authority's claim that a sales tax proposal was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act was untimely; the 35-day limitations period of Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 21167, subd. (d), began to run when the authority claimed exemption, not when the county board of supervisors placed the measure on the ballot.
|
|||||
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. |
