 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd., D043877,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An EIR or its functional equivalent under CEQA was necessary for a regional board's basin plan, which set the levels of permissible pollution for a flood control channel, because the board's environmental checklist was deficient and there was sufficient evidence of a fair argument that the project might have a significant effect on the environment.
|
|||||
| City of Rancho Cucamonga v. Regional Water Quality Control Bd., E037079,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal regulatory permit limiting the quantity and quality of water runoff that could be discharged from storm sewer systems properly allocated some inspection duties to the permittees. Federal law, either expressly or by implication, required permittees under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to perform inspections.
|
|||||
| City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, B176810,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving the drowning of a developmentally disabled child, a release agreement was valid to extent it released city and program counselor from liability for acts of ordinary negligence in operation of a recreational activities program. Release did not exculpate city and counselor from liability for conduct constituting gross negligence.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Citigroup, Inc., G033663,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Credit cardholders who alleged that banks violated Civ. Code, § 1748.9, failed to show procedural unconscionability. Although change-of-terms notice regarding binding arbitration was made in a so-called bill stuffer, cardholders were given an opportunity to opt out of arbitration.
|
|||||
| Mammoth Mountain Ski Area v. Graham, C048881,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action brought by ski instructor against snowboarder, there was a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of snowboarder, who was engaged in a snowball fight with his brother at the time he crashed into instructor, was so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport of snowboarding.
|
|||||
| Nardizzi v. Harbor Chrysler Plymouth Sales, B181535,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action alleging that a car dealership caused an accident by failing to service brakes, summary judgment was properly granted under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, because plaintiff's expert opinion was based on speculation. The only person who physically inspected the car testified, contrary to the expert's opinion, that screws were properly closed.
|
|||||
| Olaes v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., C048194,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee's defamation complaint against a company did not implicate statements made during a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding and did not concern a matter of public interest, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, did not apply.
|
|||||
| People v. Fuller, B177064,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of three counts of forcible rape, the trial court erred in imposing two consecutive sentences for the three rapes because it was in violation of the prohibition in Pen. Code, § 667.61, against consecutive sentences for multiple sexual offenses committed against the same victim on a single occasion.
|
|||||
| People v. Green, D044632,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In recommitment proceeding under Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b), any instructional error was harmless because any reasonable juror would have found the necessary linkage between defendant's severe mental disorder and his dangerousness. Experts agreed he suffered from a severe disorder that rendered him unacceptable risk for violence against others.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
