 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Duffy v. Technicolor Entm't Servs., B196126,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, B204987,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., B195050,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed reversible error in granting auto manufacturer's motion to strike portions of a driver's expert witness disclosure statement relating to his roof defect claim because driver was entitled to present new expert witness testimony regarding the claim in his second trial, even though he abandoned the claim prior to his first trial.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Berger, G039234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in failing to treat husband as though he were receiving income to which he was entitled on a current basis, or as "special circumstance" under Fam. Code, ¿ 4057, warranting a departure from guideline amount of child support, where he chose to invest his salary each month back into his company, while supporting himself with other assets.
|
|||||
| Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., S153846,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiffs alleged that a cellular telephone company's arbitration agreement and other remedial provisions were unconscionable, plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the company under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in the absence of some allegation that plaintiffs had been damaged by the company's alleged unlawful practice.
|
|||||
| People v. Bennett, S058472,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in declining to excuse two jurors in defendant's first-degree murder case under Pen. Code, ¿ 187, subd. (a), where it concluded they could fulfill their duties, and because a juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct during penalty phase deliberations, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Rodriguez, B203609,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because language preserving the presumption of innocence and explaining the prosecution's burden of proof appeared in CALCRIM No. 361, and because CALCRIM No. 361 was consistent with Evid. Code, ¿ 413, a trial court did not violate defendants due process rights by instructing jury with CALCRIM No. 361 during his attempted murder and mayhem trial.
|
|||||
| Tan v. Arnel Management Co., B197706,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence of prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults on defendants' property so as to impose on defendants a duty to provide relatively minimal security measures. The trial court erred in ruling that defendants had no duty of care.
|
|||||
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. |
