 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| American Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Superior Court, B183269,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interpreting an aviation insurance policy to require the insurer to reimburse the insureds for attorney fees incurred to protect the aircraft from loss after it was seized during a drug trafficking investigation was consistent with the objectively reasonable expectations of the insureds, who had paid to delete an exclusion of governmental seizures.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, No. B175149,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where residential property contained a freshwater marsh that supported several species of wetlands wildlife, a county did not err in denying a subdivision application; the property was correctly classified as wetlands under Pub. Resources Code, § 30121, and as an environmentally sensitive habitat area under Pub. Resources Code, § 30107.5.
|
|||||
| Gackstetter v. Frawley, B173070,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which trustee sued attorneys for improperly advising trustee of his duties, all of trustee's claims were for indemnification from a joint tortfeasor under Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6. By broadly interpreting and applying § 877.6, the appellate court concluded that a good faith settlement encompassed and barred trustee's claims.
|
|||||
| In re Burns, C049060,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parole board properly decided to defer further consideration of parole for five years because it relied on two factors under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c), which were supported by some evidence. Finding of callous disregard for suffering was supported by evidence that after shooting the victim, the inmate left and did not summon help.
|
|||||
| In re Chuong D., G034699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a juvenile proceeding, a speedy trial error did not justify reversal of a finding that defendant was culpable for assault because the only prejudice asserted was that additional admissible evidence, crucial to State's case, was ultimately produced after an eight-day recess. There was no miscarriage of justice under Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C049516,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board did not err in ruling that Lab. Code, § 5814 (amended 2004), instead of the former version of § 5814, controlled the calculation of penalties for unreasonable denial or delay in authorizing treatment and refusal to pay for treatment, which occurred prior to the operative date of the amended statute.
|
|||||
| People v. Crites, No. B178046,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly imposed two enhancements under Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b), for use of two deadly weapons, but stayed execution of one of them, because Pen. Code, § 1170.1, subd. (f), prevented execution of sentences for multiple enhancements, but not procedure of imposing but staying all but greatest enhancement falling within the statute.
|
|||||
| Raine v. City of Burbank, B180615,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A police officer's disability discrimination claim failed where the city had no duty under FEHA to make his temporary front-desk assignment permanent because that would, in effect, require the city to create a new sworn-officer position just for the officer, an obligation not imposed by FEHA's accommodation requirements.
|
|||||
| Ung v. Koehler, A109532,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
