|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - February 4, 2010
|
| |
Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, B204184,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: New trial order in a products liability case was an abuse of discretion because a reference to insurance, although inadmissible under Evid. Code, ? 1155, could not reasonably have affected the verdict and was not prejudicial under Code Civ. Proc., ? 657, subd. 1. The trial court also erred in finding that a special verdict question misled the jury.
|
|
| |
Eulloqui v. Superior Court, No. B218578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a habeas corpus proceeding alleging suppression of evidence that a witness was paid to testify, a sufficient showing of materiality under Brady was made as to police personnel file information regarding concealed payments to informants; thus, the five-year limitation on Pitchess discovery under Evid. Code, ? 1045, subd. (b)(1), was inapplicable.
|
|
| |
Goodman v. Lozano, S162655,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Buyers who had received settlements from other parties in a construction defect case exceeding the damages awarded against the sellers did not receive a net monetary recovery under Code Civ. Proc., ? 1032, subd. (a)(4), and the sellers were properly found to be prevailing parties because Code Civ. Proc., ? 877, subd. (a), reduced the award to zero.
|
|
| |
Harris v. City of Santa Monica, B199571,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Instructing with CACI No. 2500 instead of BAJI No. 12.26 was error because the mixed-motive defense was good law. The error prejudicially allowed the employee to prevail under Gov. Code, ? 12940, subd. (a), by showing that her pregnancy was considered during the termination process, even if she would have been terminated for performance reasons.
|
|
| |
In re A. G., D053991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: San Diego curfew ordinance, San Diego Mun. Code, ? 58.0101 et seq., violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not provide for a minor to travel to or from protected activities except when accompanied by an adult and contained no going to or coming home from exemption to permit a minor safely to pass from one exempt location to another.
|
|
| |
Lukather v. General Motors, LLC, B209979,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court properly awarded plaintiff damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, where the evidence was sufficient to support trial court's findings that a car manufacturer violated Civ. Code, ? 1793.2, subd. (d)(2), and that it did so willfully so as to incur a civil penalty.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, S158007,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 4, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A "change in ownership" occurred within the meaning of Cal. Const., art. XIII A, ? 2, subd. (a), where the entire equitable estate in the property was transferred upon the settlor's death. Upon her death, the settlor transferred not just a life estate, but the entire fee interest.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback