 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc., G036848,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because credit transactions, separate and apart from any sale or lease of goods or services, were not covered under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq., the trial court properly sustained a credit card company's demurrers to a cardholder's complaint for injunctive relief based on the Act.
|
|||||
| Bonander v. Town of Tiburon, A112539,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed property owners' lawsuit seeking to invalidate a town's special assessment because the lawsuit constituted a validation action subject to procedural requirements governing such actions, and no good cause existed for owners' failure to publish notice of their action within Code Civ. Proc., § 863's required time period.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Catholic Healthcare West, C052039,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury action, once a patient's attorney determined that the hospital's president would actually receive the notice of intent to sue if transmitted by fax, there was no need for the attorney to comply with the requirement of an advance written agreement in order to trigger the presumption of service under Code Civ. Proc., § 1013.
|
|||||
| Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach, G036991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City properly issued a grading permit without conducting an environmental review of the permit's impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., upon reasonably finding that the use of imported fill was a minor alteration in the condition of land under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15304, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| McAllister v. County of Monterey, H028813,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sustained a demurrer in an administrative mandamus action, filed simultaneously with an appeal to the California Coastal Commission, which challenged a county's approval of a coastal development permit; exhaustion of administrative remedies by appeal to Commission under Pub. Resources Code, § 30603, subd. (a)(1), was required.
|
|||||
| Overaa Construction v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., C051245,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Lab. Code, § 6432, subd. (b), was an affirmative defense, lack of reasonable diligence was not an element of an occupational safety violation; moreover, the failure of a general contractor's superintendent to measure the depth of a subcontractor's trench to determine whether a protective system was necessary showed a lack of due diligence.
|
|||||
| People v. Flores, D047249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Chapman harmless error standard, reversible error occurred in a criminal trial because the trial court's instructions to the jury, considered individually and as a whole, did not inform the jury, as required by the Fifth Amendment, that the prosecution had the burden to prove each element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Roehl v. Ritchie, G036999,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrator had discretion to issue a second award, after confirmation of the first award, which changed the distribution of trust assets based on an updated appraisal of real property; Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.4, did not prevent arbitrators from issuing awards that contemplated future proceedings, such as resolving matters of trust administration.
|
|||||
| Sacramento Police Officers Assn. v. City of Sacramento , C042493, C043377,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A proposal to hire police force annuitants, in response to an abrupt staffing shortage that could not be remedied through ordinary hiring processes, was not subject to a city's duty under Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to meet and confer because it was a fundamental managerial policy decision designed to maintain existing level of public safety.
|
|||||
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. |
