 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alvarado v. Superior Court, No. B194139,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant brought a shotgun into a convenience store with the intent of using it to trigger a lethal response and commit "suicide by cop," he did not actually engage in any gun-related conduct; thus, the evidence was insufficient to hold him to answer on an allegation of personal use of a firearm under Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Bettencourt v. City and County of San Francisco, A112880,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police disciplinary charges arising from an incident in January 2002 were timely filed before expiration of the one-year limitations period in Gov. Code, § 3304, even though notice was not served until April 2003, because the statute was tolled under § 3304, subd. (d)(6), by the filing of a civil suit in December 2002 arising from same incident.
|
|||||
| Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco, A111455,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disciplinary charges against four police officers were barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Gov. Code, § 3304; although the limitations period was tolled under § 3304, subd. (d)(1), while a criminal investigation was ongoing, the charges were not timely filed after the criminal investigation ended and a related civil action was settled.
|
|||||
| City National Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., B189240,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a tax board argued that a corporation was required under Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 32, to pay in full all disputed tax assessments, including proposed assessments, before filing a tax refund action, the corporation was not required to pay the proposed assessments because they were not final.
|
|||||
| Estate of Burden, B185726,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objector proved that decedent was his father under the clear and convincing evidence standard pursuant to Prob. Code, § 6453, subd. (b)(2), because the decedent had acknowledged in writing that objector was own child, and decedent admitted to his mother, brother, and sister, as well as to objector himself and his mother, that objector was his son.
|
|||||
| Medeiros v. Superior Court, No., B193042,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration provision in health insurer's agreement with insureds' employer was unenforceable against insureds, as it failed to comply with disclosure requirements of Health & Saf. Code, § 1363.1; insureds were entitled to same disclosure from insurer concerning arbitration provisions as any individual subscriber who signed an enrollment form.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B190054, No. B190655,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employees who received awards that included future medical care were entitled to attorney fees after the workers' compensation carrier refused to furnish some of the treatment but did not file proceedings to terminate care pursuant to Lab. Code, § 4607; awarding fees comported with the rule of liberal construction of workers' compensation statutes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
