 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| First American Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, B194004,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A class representative, who purported to bring a cause of action on behalf of a class of which he was never a member, was disallowed from obtaining precertification discovery to find a new class representative. The class representative was, in effect, a stranger to the action.
|
|||||
| Gillan v. City of San Marino, B182979 & B183592,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a high school coach's action arising from a detention without probable cause for sexual molestation, the city and police were immune under Gov. Code, §§ 821, 815.2, subd. (b), from liability for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress because their press release identifying the coach was made in furtherance of investigation.
|
|||||
| In re Robert A., D048994,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removing a dependent child from the father's custody was error because the agency failed to give notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; although notice under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) was given in half-sibling's case, the documents were not in the file and the case could not be bootstrapped to the half-sibling's case.
|
|||||
| LaLiberte v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, G036235,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a truth in lending case, the trial court erred in granting the lender's demurrers to class allegations without leave to amend; although an amended complaint defined the class members as those obtaining loans after the date on which the named plaintiffs obtained their loans, that pleading error did not affect the community of interest alleged.
|
|||||
| People v. Leon, S137137,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an investigation into a drug trafficking organization, wiretaps were necessary within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 629.52, subd. (d), because none of defendants' proposed alternatives, taken singly or in combination, offered a realistic prospect of exposing the extent and structure of the conspiracy without the assistance of wiretaps.
|
|||||
| Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, S133794,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action against a seller of DVD player in which named plaintiff sought identifying information from complaining customers, the trial court's order adopting the named plaintiff's proposed language for a letter to the complaining customers was sufficient and involved no serious breach of privacy in violation of Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.
|
|||||
| San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, D049298,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allowing amendment of a wrongful death complaint to add an additional heir after the two-year limitations period of Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1, expired on her wrongful death claim; the relation-back doctrine did not apply because each heir had a personal and separate cause of action that sought to enforce an independent right.
|
|||||
| Temple City Redevelopment Agency v. Bayside Drive Limited Partnership, B189736 c/w B189737,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In case in which a property owner was dismissed, not because condemning agency abandoned the proceedings, but because owner sold the property while the action was pending, owner was entitled to recover its litigation expenses under Code Civ. Proc., § 1268.610, subd. (a)(1), because the statute stated that expenses were recoverable "for any reason."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
