 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 108 Holdings, LTD. v. City of Rohnert Park, A108629,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city's acceptance of a settlement agreement and stipulated jjudgment resolving a lawsuit that challenged the city's adoption of its general plan did not constitute an improper surrender of its police power because it had not bargained away its power to enact legislation or to regulate in the future.
|
|||||
| Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., B176953,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., G032301,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indemnity agreement that required a window manufacturer to pay a developer's defense costs in a construction defect case brought by homeowners, even without a finding of negligence on the manufacturer's part, was sufficiently specific to be enforceable and was a permissible agreement under the authority of Civ. Code, § 2778.
|
|||||
| Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. BBIC Investors, LLC, A109876,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon an owner's anticipatory breach of a construction agreement, the contractor had completed its contract within the meaning of Civ. Code, § 3115, when it informed the owner that it considered the owner to be in breach and withdrew its workers from the site; hence, the recording of its claim of mechanic's lien the following day was not premature.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco, A111355,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California's Ellis Act preempted requirement of S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.9A, subd. (e)(4), that landlords notify their tenants about their right to receive payment and amount of payment landlord believed to be due because the requirement created impermissible substantive defense in summary eviction proceedings that was not permissible under the Act.
|
|||||
| Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc., C049391,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a suspended corporation was barred from exercising its corporate powers under Rev. & Tax. Code, § 23301, for failure to pay taxes, and the corporation's insurer was not a party to the action because it never filed a motion to intervene, the insurer lacked standing to request any relief in trial court, including a claim for fees and costs.
|
|||||
| People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., G034799,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County's attempt to enforce summary judgment in its favor was barred because an appeal from an order denying motion to set aside a summary judgment on bail bond forfeiture and to exonerate bail automatically did not stay enforcement of the judgment and toll two-year time period, Pen. Code, § 1306, subd. (f), within which judgment could be enforced.
|
|||||
| People v. Gokcek, 1-05-AP-000244,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order granting defendant's motion for dismissal of a charge of false imprisonment of a minor on the ground that a civil compromise had been reached pursuant to Pen. Code, §§ 1377-1399, was reversed because the record was inadequate to determine whether defendant's alleged crime fell within the conduct described by Pen. Code, §§ 647.6 or 11165.6.
|
|||||
| People v. Hiscox, A105383,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's ex post facto claim in a child sexual abuse case was not forfeited by counsel's failure to object, and the prosecution's use of general testimony that did not establish at trial that the offenses occurred after the effective date of Pen. Code, § 667.61, precluded sentencing under § 667.61.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
