|
|
| |
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 11 - February 17, 2009
|
| |
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., B204117,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Apparel manufacturer properly alleged a cause of action for sale of stolen goods sufficient to survive demurrer because the plain language of Pen. Code, ? 496, subd. (c), clearly did not restrict the right to bring a civil action to the owner of the stolen property, and manufacturer's action appeared to be within the intended scope of the statute.
|
|
| |
Cleveland v. Internet Specialties West, Inc., B203174,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because investors were to be repaid out of net cash receipts, limitations did not begin to run when their requests for an accounting were denied before any receipts had been earned; there was no injury at that time, and whether they exercised reasonable diligence after the project began generating revenue was a question for the trier of fact.
|
|
| |
Gundogdu v. King Mai, Inc., A120323,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Action for damages from construction defects was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations because Code Civ. Proc., ? 337.15, was not made inapplicable by the fact that the builder owned the property for almost a year and a half from the time the construction phase was complete until the owners purchased it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc., A120072,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Excess insurer could assert a negligence claim against a workers' compensation claims administrator that authorized surgery against its doctor's recommendation, which caused injury to the employee, without accurate notice to the excess insurer; the claims administrator had a duty of care to the excess insurer under these exceptional circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
| |
City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, C054495,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 13, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a project description in a city's resolutions of necessity was so vague, uncertain, and sweeping in scope that it failed to specify "public use" for which city sought acquisition of property, as required by Code Civ. Proc., ? 1245.230, owner's challenge to facial validity of resolutions was meritorious and city had no right to take property.
|
|
| |
Calemine v. Samuelson, B194461,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Seller's statement in his Civ. Code, ? 1102.6, disclosure form that he was aware of flooding during heavy rains was adequate, but a triable issue of fact existed as to whether his common law duty to disclose information materially affecting the property's value or desirability included disclosure of past lawsuits about water intrusion and repairs.
|
|
| |
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, H031740,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court properly found that neither the California Public Records Act (CPRA) nor case law precluded taxpayers from bringing an action under Code Civ. Proc., ? 526a, against various state and local governmental entities because the purpose of the CPRA was furthered, not obstructed, by citizen suits under ? 526a to enforce the CPRA's provisions.
|
|
| |
David S. Karton, a Law Corp. v. Dougherty, B201663,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Judgment debtor was entitled to relief from an award of supplemental attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing a default judgment because he did not receive notice of the application for the award; Code Civ. Proc., ? 1010, did not relieve the judgment creditor of the obligation to give notice under Code Civ. Proc., ? 685.070, subd. (b).
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback