 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barefield v. Washington Mutual Bank, C049314,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's service of its motion for summary judgment was sufficient to comply with the requirement that the 75-day period of notice be increased by two court days under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a), where defendant did so by adding the two court days at the end of the 75-day period instead of at the beginning.
|
|||||
| Kephart v. Genuity, Inc., C047659,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was not liable in negligence for an employee's intentional tort in causing the crash of another vehicle by intentionally forcing it off a roadway because the jury reasonably could find that the employee's conduct was motivated entirely by personal malice and did not occur within the course and scope of his employment.
|
|||||
| Overton v. Walt Disney Co., B179854,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Brown & Yana, S131030,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court in a move-away case diligently inquired into the matter of detriment and duly considered the noncustodial parent's evidence but properly found them insufficient to establish the detriment required for custody modification, the trial court did not err in denying custody modification without holding an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| City of Santa Clarita v. NTS Technical Systems, B169596,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an eminent domain action brought by a city, the proper date of valuation was the date of the probable compensation deposit made by the city pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.110, subd. (a); although the city voluntarily made a supplemental deposit, that did not change the date of deposit and valuation to the date of the supplemental deposit.
|
|||||
| In re Aaliyah R., B183517,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly terminated mother's parental rights in her four-year-old daughter. That mother may have had a last-minute change of heart during last brief months of a long saga of poor choices, inappropriate behavior, and refusals to care for her daughter was not compelling evidence of a legitimate, genuine or lasting change of circumstances.
|
|||||
| Singhania v. Uttarwar, H028633,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Facts did not remove plaintiffs from the bar in Corp. Code, § 1312. Complaint did not allege facts showing corporation was required to physically hand over the information and documents requested by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs lacked a remedy to enforce any right to inspection during the statutory period for exercise of their dissenters' rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
