 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ambriz v. Kelegian, D046453,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for law firm in client's legal malpractice action arising from firm's representation in her premises liability action against owners and managers of her apartment complex; client presented sufficient evidence to create triable issue of fact as to issues of duty and causation in premises liability case.
|
|||||
| Manderville v. PCG&S Group, Inc., D047285,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to real estate brokers on a claim that they intentionally misrepresented the use of the property; although the contract provided that the buyers were to satisfy themselves as to representations regarding use, Civ. Code, § 1668, did not allow anyone to be contractually exempted from liability for fraud.
|
|||||
| Rocio N. v. Jorge N., A114515,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ross v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., A110543,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was immune from liability under Gov. Code, § 815.2, as to a former employee's claims of discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The claims came within the scope of Gov. Code, § 821.6, because they fell under the rubric of malicious prosecution discussed in case law.
|
|||||
| Tanzel v. City of Richmond, A112029,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Womack v. San Francisco Community College Dist., A112564,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary instructor was not entitled to reinstatement to a position with a community college district because he did not work more than 60 percent of a full-time assignment, as defined by the district, and therefore did not become a contract employee under Ed. Code, §§ 87482.5, 87604; the district had discretion to define a full-time assignment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
