 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., B181837,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Advertising injury offense provision in commercial general liability and umbrella liability policies, which covered invasion of privacy, did not provide coverage for the insured's alleged conduct of sending unsolicited advertisements to fax machines because no private facts were disclosed; hence, the insurer had no duty to defend the insured.
|
|||||
| Bostick v. Flex Equipment Co., Inc., B171567, B173455,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Products liability award against a manufacturer was properly reduced by the full amount of a settlement with another party because Proposition 51 (approved 1986) applied to actions based upon principles of comparative fault, as stated in Civ. Code, § 1431.2, subd. (a), not to a strict products liability action involving a single indivisible injury.
|
|||||
| Kunysz v. Sandler, G037226,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a defamation case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (f), when it denied a motion for reconsideration and a renewed motion to strike, filed about six weeks before the trial date; although a motion for reconsideration was permitted in the context of anti-SLAPP motions, timeliness was important.
|
|||||
| People v. Calhoun, S129896,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence enhancement under Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (c), was properly imposed on defendant who committed gross vehicular manslaughter as an aider and abettor, where defendant fled the scene of the crime. It was not necessary that defendant be the direct perpetrator of the manslaughter in order for the enhancement to apply.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Progressive Marathon Ins. Co., Case No: CIV.A. 1253,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN BERNARDINO, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer of a vehicle in which a passenger was injured by an uninsured motorist had no liability to the injured person's insurer for contribution under uninsured motorist coverage; the vehicle insurer's policy was not primary under Ins. Code, § 11580.9, subd. (d), because the injured person's coverage applied to her personally, not to the vehicle.
|
|||||
| Weiss v. Washington Mutual Bank, B187834,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fraud and other tort claims asserted against a federal savings and loan association by borrowers who alleged that they were misled as to the amount of a prepayment penalty were federally preempted in accordance with 12 C.F.R. § 560.2(b)(5) because the Office of Thrift Supervision has the exclusive authority to regulate prepayment penalties.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
