 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton,inc, No. C023438.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Res judicata barred insurer's subrogation claim. Absent evidence of conduct by appellee inducing insurer to believe it could split cause of action with its insured, insurer had burden of protecting its subrogation rights.
|
|||||
| Balasubramaniam v. County of Los Angeles, B123069,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a hearing was not required, where the parties fully and fairly litigated the matter before a hearing officer, res judicata principles applied to bind the parties to the agency's final findings.
|
|||||
| Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., B129601,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of the terms and conditions of the missing policy, and although it was possible to prove the contents of a lost policy by secondary evidence, plaintiff did not do so in this case.
|
|||||
| DuPont Merck Pharm. Co. v. Superior Court, No. G024013.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandate was granted vacating respondent trial court's order denying petitioner's motion to strike complaint under anti-SLAPP statute, where first prong of anti-SLAPP statute was satisfied.
|
|||||
| Haywood v. Superior Court, No. B135613.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child had significant California connections, was born and exclusively resided there; respondent court should have exercised jurisdiction where petitioner did not wrongfully remove child from Michigan, no custody order in effect.
|
|||||
| People v. Gallardo, No. A087149. No. A088030. No. A088200.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither superior court's order declining appellant 1's proposal nor its refusal to reconsider the order was appealable, court also held that appellants 2 and 3 could not appeal denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
| Yergan v. Dep't of Real Estate, No. B119816.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Recovery was denied where statutory prerequisite that judgment be based upon fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit was not met since appellants' judgment was based on professional negligence and breach of duty claims.
|
|||||
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. |
