 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A120462,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee properly received workers' compensation in two awards where two industrial injuries to her neck each caused 31 percent permanent disability; apportionment based on causation in Lab. Code, ¿¿ 4663 and 4664, required that each distinct industrial injury be separately compensated based on its individual contribution to a permanent disability.
|
|||||
| In re E.G., C059277,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Until a child's biological parentage was established, an alleged father's claim of Indian heritage did not trigger the notice requirement under the Indian Child Welfare Act because, absent a biological connection, the child could not claim Indian heritage through the alleged father.
|
|||||
| In re Ross, C057249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although there was some evidence supporting the finding of California's Governor that petitioner was unsuitable for parole, the Governor's decision was flawed because it did not contain an explicit articulation of a rational nexus between the facts and current dangerousness.
|
|||||
| Kwok v. Transnation Title Ins. Co., B207421,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiffs, who were the sole members of an LLC, argued that they became insureds by operation of law because they succeeded to the LLC's interest upon its dissolution, title insurance coverage did not continue because title was transferred by deed from named insured to plaintiffs as trustees of a family trust, a separate legal entity.
|
|||||
| People v. Jackson, C056828,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court acted appropriately when, after finding under Pen. Code, ¿ 667, subd. (a)(1), that defendant had five prior serious felony convictions that were not brought and tried separately, the trial court included one consecutive five-year enhancement in defendant's sentence and then imposed the remaining enhancements and stayed their execution.
|
|||||
| People v. Zanoletti, B199682,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Multiple convictions under Pen. Code, ¿ 550, subds. (a)(1) and (5), were appropriate because they were based on defendant's different acts of fraud in creating false documents with the intent that they be presented in support of fraudulent insurance claims and in the subsequent knowing presentation of false claims based on those documents.
|
|||||
| Quarry v. Doe 1, A120048,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs alleged that they suffered childhood sexual abuse by a priest employed by a Catholic bishop, plaintiffs' claims were not governed by the one-year window for the filing of time-barred claims set forth in Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 340.1, subd. (c), but were governed by ¿ 340.1, subd. (b)(2), in its prospective application.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
