 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., B204628,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the common law tort of wrongful discharge was separate from statutory rights of action, an employee who was terminated after complaining of inadequate staffing and an unsafe work environment was not required to show that staffing ratios were illegal or to pursue an administrative remedy under Health & Saf. Code, ¿¿ 1596.881, 1596.882.
|
|||||
| Estate of Will, No. B200639,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decedent's widow was not entitled to a statutory share of the decedent's trust or estate, where a waiver of the widow's inheritance rights was in writing, was signed by the widow, and complied with the requirements of Prob. Code, ¿ 144.
|
|||||
| People v. Adams, F054047,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a destructive device in public under Pen. Code, ¿ 12303.2. Although defendant argued that Styrofoam does not shatter in the same way as glass, ¿ 12303.2 did not state that a breakable container must shatter; it simply stated that the container be breakable.
|
|||||
| California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, C057083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was inappropriate to certify a mitigated negative declaration for a development project under an in-lieu fee program because the program did not presumptively establish full mitigation. For such a program to satisfy CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 21000 et seq., it had to pass CEQA muster, either at the programmatic or individual project level.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Burton, F054863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prisoner's decision to refuse nourishment was based on irrational thought process. Trial court correctly granted a petition for a determination of a lack of capacity to make health care decisions under Prob. Code, ¿ 813. In light of his delusional beliefs, prisoner could not participate in the decision by means of a rational thought process.
|
|||||
| Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist, H032067,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Water district's annual report and hearing transcripts contained substantial evidence supporting a finding that its groundwater-charge rate increases were for statutorily exempt purposes under Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 21080, subd. (b)(8), and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ¿ 15273, subd. (c). The findings adequately identified the basis for the exemption.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), C057896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiffs alleged that a national bank violated California's holiday statutes, Civ. Code, ¿¿ 9 & 11, the statutes were preempted by 12 C.F.R. ¿ 7.4008(d)(2)(iv), which allowed the bank to set credit card payment due dates without regard to state law limitations.
|
|||||
| Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Parks, No. B199364, No. B200267,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was not entitled to summary adjudication of a bad faith claim alleging that it denied coverage under a homeowner's policy when a reasonable investigation would have disclosed that there was coverage under another policy; the adequacy of its investigation and any prejudice from delayed notice were disputed issues of material fact.
|
|||||
| State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., E041425,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
