 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blanco v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., G038255,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) preempted state common law claim brought by a deceased patient's family for negligent manufacture and negligent failure to warn because a jury verdict in family's favor would impose a state requirement on a mitral bileaflet valve manufacturer different from the device-specific federal requirements in valve's premarket approval.
|
|||||
| Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., A116710,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because insurers' equitable contribution claim against third-party insurers did not arise from contract, but from equity, and insurers were not signatories to arbitration agreements between insured and third-party insurers, insurers could not be compelled to arbitrate; exceptions to rule against compelling nonsignatories to arbitrate did not apply.
|
|||||
| Esther B. v. City of Los Angeles, B184660, B107857 c/w B108017,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff, who was an attorney, sought relief from the dismissal of her motions for attorney fees, plaintiff was not entitled to mandatory relief under Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), where plaintiff appeared in propria persona along with her co-counsel.
|
|||||
| In re Lauren Z., B197391,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to place an incarcerated mother's child with mother's sister in Florida; county department of children and family services did everything within its power to expedite the process required under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children so that child could be placed with sister.
|
|||||
| Lambert v. Carneghi, A113388,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Litigation privilege, Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b), did not protect appraiser from suit over his role as expert hired by homeowners in their action for negligence based on appraiser's alleged failure to adequately advance owners' position in fire insurance appraisal proceeding; privilege did not apply to prevent a party from suing own expert witness.
|
|||||
| Maranatha Corrections, LLC v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, C053293, C053913,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a private prison contract, the contractor did not establish a probability of prevailing on claim that it was defamed by a termination letter asserting misappropriation of public funds because the letter was released in defense of a policy decision and was protected by official acts privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| People v. Hua, A116578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Fourth Amendment, the fact that police observed people smoking marijuana in defendant's apartment did not support a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances because the nature of the crime was minor. Possession of under 28.5 grams of marijuana was nonjailable under Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).
|
|||||
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. |
