 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, B179133,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Los Angeles Mun. Code, § 151.04B, which prohibited a landlord, after termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 housing contract, from charging the tenant more than the tenant's portion of the rent under the former contract, without any limitation as to time, conflicted with and was preempted by Civ. Code, § 1954.535.
|
|||||
| Bandt v. Board of Retirement, D044999,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retirement board did not act against its members' interests in adopting interim actuarial valuation of county retirement association's pension fund and, thus, did not act in violation of Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17; it was within board's discretion to decide to reflect receipt of county's extraordinary voluntary payment to fund at time it was made.
|
|||||
| Benninghoff v. Superior Court, G035923,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a lawyer resigned from the State Bar of California with disciplinary charges pending against him, he could not thereafter represent parties before state agencies as a lay representative because lawyers who resigned with disciplinary charges pending could not practice law, without exception, as provided in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| D & M Financial Corp. v. City of Long Beach, B173977,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By demolishing structures after failing to provide a trust deed holder with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and opportunity to correct defects at the property, a city violated the constitutional due process rights of the trust deed holder and violated Health & Saf. Code, § 17980, subd. (b); thus, an inverse condemnation judgment was proper.
|
|||||
| Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., E036896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The litigation privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, and Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 applied to a purportedly defamatory letter from a homeowners association to its members because one purpose was to inform members of pending litigation involving the association and one owner. A motion to strike should have been granted as to the owner's defamation claim.
|
|||||
| Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., S124464,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the saving clause of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act, Water Resources Control Board could direct lumber companies to adopt a water quality monitoring program that was not required by Department of Forestry. Nothing in the act, including the timber-harvest-plan approval process, barred the board from fulfilling independent obligations.
|
|||||
| People v. Fisher, No. B181560,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a proceeding in which appellant was declared a mentally disordered offender, where there was no evidence jury could see appellant's leg restraint or the single wrist cuff he wore on the first day of trial, use of restraints, even if erroneous, did not hinder his ability to represent himself or deny him a fair trial. Any error was harmless.
|
|||||
| People v. Ranger Ins. Co., No. B177435,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court wrongly denied motion of criminal defendant's surety to vacate a summary judgment entered against it in a bond forfeiture proceeding and to exonerate the bond brought more than 185 days after the notice of forfeiture because Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (c)(3), imposed no time constraints on a surety to make a motion to exonerate the bond.
|
|||||
| Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace, A110023,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under due process principles, a worker was not collaterally estopped from claiming that a company was the successor-in-interest to purported source of his asbestos exposure. There was no identity of parties between worker and plaintiffs in a prior suit because being represented by the same counsel did not suffice to extend the doctrine of privity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
