 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adoption of Joshua S., S138169,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney fees could not be awarded under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, against a birth mother who unsuccessfully challenged the adoption of her son by her former same-sex partner because she did nothing harmful to the public interest, although the case resulted in an important appellate decision clarifying the rights of same-sex adoptive parents.
|
|||||
| CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore, No. B197077,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restaurant's declaratory relief action against defendant, who sent a Proposition 65 notice to restaurant stating that some of its food products contained a cancer-causing chemical, naphthalene, requiring restaurant to warn consumers, arose from protected activity and was subject to a special motion to strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.
|
|||||
| CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, D051293,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Code Civ. Proc., § 382, class action alleging that a lender had violated borrowers' privacy rights by monitoring conversations, the trial court did not err in allowing original plaintiffs who lacked standing because their calls were not monitored to obtain precertification discovery of the identities of potential plaintiffs with standing.
|
|||||
| County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, B198118,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent statutory procedures for refunds of local utility user taxes, Gov. Code, § 910, governed a class claim brought against a county by taxpayers seeking such refunds and did not require an individual claim to be filed for each class member; providing information to identify and make ascertainable the class met the claim presentation requirement.
|
|||||
| In re Silvia R., B197381,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While juvenile court had jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1), to require that mother, as a condition of her disposition plan for reunification, show that she could protect her child, it did not have jurisdiction to directly order child's stepfather and brother, with whom child was not placed, to participate in counseling.
|
|||||
| Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, B197412,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Stuart, C054017,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a rape case, although the trial court did not mention defendant's six prior misdemeanor convictions as a reason for imposing an upper term sentence of eight years, those convictions were numerous and qualified as an aggravating circumstance under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2).
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Small), D051355,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of petition to civilly commit inmate as sexually violent predator under SVPA was proper; inmate was in unlawful custody, People failed to show that delay in filing petition resulted from a good faith mistake of fact or law under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(2), and Code Civ. Proc., § 12a, did not extend time to file petition.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Ragingwire Telcommunications, Inc., S138130,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A terminated employee could not state a cause of action against a telecommunications company under the California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., based on the company's refusal to accommodate his use of medical marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.
|
|||||
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. |
