 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Farm Bureau Federation v. California State Water Resources Control Bd., C050289,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a challenge to annual fees imposed by a water agency, although Wat. Code, § 1525, was facially constitutional, fees were unlawful as applied by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 1066; there was no showing that charges allocated to payor bore a fair or reasonable relationship to payor's burdens on or benefits from regulatory activity.
|
|||||
| Ciraulo v. City of Newport Beach, G034963,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was not required to grant a building variance for a home addition that was already built. The owners' estoppel argument failed because nothing that the city's inspectors were alleged to have done vitiated the misconduct of the owners' contractor, whose knowledge and misconduct was legally attributable to the owners under Civ. Code, § 2338.
|
|||||
| In re Kobe A., B190595,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency proceeding, the failure to give father the specific notice required by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 316.2, subd. (b), and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1413(g), regarding his paternity status did not affect the ultimate outcome of the proceedings and was harmless error.
|
|||||
| In re Sodersten, F047425,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two trial witnesses were of paramount importance to prosecution's case, and the outcome of trial depended to very large extent on their credibility and the reliability of their testimony, suppression of the witnesses' tape-recorded statements containing inconsistent statements and admissions of lying deprived habeas petitioner of fair trial.
|
|||||
| Sofranek v. County of Merced, F049379,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an amended claim against a county related back to the original claim, which was rejected more than six months before suit was filed, sustaining a demurrer was error because the claimant adequately pleaded equitable estoppel in asserting that the second rejection notice told him he had six more months to file suit under Gov. Code, § 945.6.
|
|||||
| Architectural Comm. for Prestwick Estates v. Hunt, G035843,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Castillo v. Express Escrow Co., No. B186306,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mobile home buyers could proceed in a suit against an escrow agent that disbursed funds after receiving written notice of a dispute between the buyers and seller; although the notice did not contain a demand not to close escrow and did not cite Health & Saf. Code, § 18035, subd. (f), that did not relieve the agent of its duty to hold the funds.
|
|||||
| People v. Thomas, A111109,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the information alleged the Pen. Code, § 803, former subd. (g), limitations extension with respect to three counts of forcible sodomy, and defendant did not request a jury instruction or otherwise raise the statute of limitations issue below, defendant forfeited his contention that the prosecution of the charges was untimely.
|
|||||
| Van Slyke v. Gibson, No. B185339,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were not required to seek mediation as a condition precedent to recovery of attorney fees, where defendants had sought attorney fees for defense of plaintiff's action for breach of contract and specific performance, not for prosecution of their cross-complaint for intentional and negligent interference with an economic relationship.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
