 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| California School Employees Assn. v. Colton Joint Unified School Dist., E044388,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district that had a rule providing not less than 100 working days of paid sick leave as set forth in Ed. Code, § 45196, could not deduct an injured employee's vacation leave and differential leave concurrently; differential leave was defined in § 45196 as exclusive of vacation and thus had to be deducted separately, or consecutively.
|
|||||
| Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, A120493,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee was not likely to succeed on the merits of a defamation claim based on statements that her former employer made to her about the reason for her termination because the employee could not prove publication, as required by Civ. Code, § 46. The possibility of the employee republishing the statement did not make it actionable.
|
|||||
| Doe v. California Lutheran High School Assn., E044811,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Students did not have a discrimination claim against a private religious school that expelled them for having a lesbian relationship because school was not a "business establishment" under Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code, § 51 et seq., but rather an expressive social organization whose primary function was inculcation of values in youth members.
|
|||||
| In re A.R., D053125,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency case, the juvenile court erred in refusing father's request to stay proceedings for 90 days pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), where father met the SCRA's conditions necessary to obtain a stay. Because a letter submitted by father's attorney met the statutory conditions to obtain a stay, a stay was mandatory.
|
|||||
| In re R.H., F055047,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on a father's history of meritless appeals in propria persona in his son's dependency proceedings, it was proper for the appellate court to designate him a vexatious litigant under Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(1), and to require a prefiling order under Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, although he was the defendant in the underlying proceeding.
|
|||||
| Kasperbauer v. Fairfield, No. B200076,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The probate court had the authority to order the beneficiaries of a trust to pay attorney fees incurred by the trustee in completing and defending an accounting. The trustee's right to indemnification for expenses reasonably incurred in defending the accounting was conferred by Prob. Code, § 15685.
|
|||||
| People v. Force, G039186,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of the California Sexually Violent Predator Act, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, as amended by Proposition 83 to defendant did not violate defendant's constitutional protections from ex post facto laws and being placed more than once in jeopardy for the same crime.
|
|||||
| Sanai v. Saltz, B198217 and B202787,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumer's cause of action under Civ. Code, § 1785.25, subd. (a), alleging that furnishers of credit information failed to investigate the accuracy of reported information upon receiving notice of a dispute was not federally preempted because 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(F)(ii) expressly excepted § 1785.25, subd. (a), from preemption.
|
|||||
| Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, S150371,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq., did not preclude enforcement of an arbitration agreement between a law firm and a client; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6201, contemplated other proceedings, and references in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, to a trial after MFAA arbitration did not bar contractual arbitration.
|
|||||
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. |
