|
|
| |
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 - January 18, 2008
|
| |
|
| |
Hammond v. County of Los Angeles, B189262,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Employment discrimination claims were not barred by the one-year limitations period in Gov. Code, ? 12960, subd. (d), even though some of the employer's actions occurred more than a year before the employee filed her administrative complaint, because there was evidence of discrete actionable conduct within the one-year limitations period.
|
|
| |
Ovando v. County of Los Angeles, B186504,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in granting former criminal defendant's petition under Gov. Code, ? 946.6, for relief from claim presentation requirement; his inability to prove causation due to collateral estoppel did not delay accrual of his claim, as it did not prevent him from suspecting that his attorney's negligence was proximate cause of his convictions.
|
|
| |
People v. Power, E041445,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In trial for kidnapping for purposes of a sexual offense under Pen. Code, ? 209, subd. (b)(1)), movement of the victim was not merely incidental to underlying offenses because after using threats to coerce the victim into sex, defendant chose locations that made it easier to videotape the sexual activity, increasing the risk of psychological harm.
|
|
| |
Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., B193713,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The forfeiture provisions of a financial brokerage company employer's incentive compensation plan did not violate Lab. Code, ?? 201 and 202, because, as a matter of economic reality, employees who elected to participate in the plan's stock-purchase program were paid all the wages they designated to invest in company stock.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback