 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. , No. B181664,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because former Lab. Code, § 4062 applied to represented cases with a date of injury before January 1, 2005, WCJ's decision compelling a medical evaluation of a represented employee under that statute did not result in substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the employee, since he sustained his industrial injury in 1999.
|
|||||
| In re P.C., D046406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The claim of parents challenging the constitutionality of the exception to termination of parental rights under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(D), was not forfeited on appeal because, although the parties did not refer to the exception by its subdivision heading, the exception was raised by the parents and considered by the trial court.
|
|||||
| People v. Allen, H027835,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order extending defendant's commitment as a mentally disordered offender was reversed, where the prosecutor failed to file the extension petition before the termination of defendant's prior commitment as required by Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (e).
|
|||||
| Gil v. Bank of America, National Assn., B181249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners had no cause of action against a collecting bank that accepted an insurer's check, jointly payable to a mortgagee, without the mortgagee's indorsement; the bank fully reimbursed the mortgagee for a fraud loss, and Cal. U. Com. Code, § 3420, subd. (b), precluded recovery of consequential and special damages on a claim for conversion.
|
|||||
| Jibilian v. Franchise Tax Bd., B175952,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Franchise Tax Board was not required to follow the deficiency assessment procedures under Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19033, in order to deny a tax refund to taxpayers claiming that their wages from private employment were not taxable.
|
|||||
| Pope v. Superior Court, No. B188885,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Malibu Mun. Code, § 2.08.040, which limited city council members to two four-year terms, a council member was eligible for reelection to a second four-year term after she served a partial term in her late husband's place, followed by one full four-year term. The words "four-year term" did not mean less than or up to a four-year term.
|
|||||
| State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, C044714,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court properly held that State Water Resources Control Board erred when it failed to allocate responsibility for meeting all of the flow objectives in the plan. The Board was not entitled to implement alternate flow objectives agreed to by various interested parties in lieu of the flow objectives actually provided for in the plan.
|
|||||
| Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner, C049246,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action for parental sexual abuse was not revived by Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (c), because any alleged abuse arose from the parental relationship, not any employment relationship, even though the daughter claimed that some of the abuse occurred at businesses in which the parents were partners and that the father was the agent of the mother.
|
|||||
| People v. Le, H028821,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's sentence for burglary had to be stayed under Pen. Code, § 654, because the burglary conviction arose out of the same course of conduct as a robbery conviction, the trial court violated the ban on multiple punishments by calculating the amounts of restitution and parole revocation fines based in part upon the burglary conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Vasquez, B181422,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly imposed multiple sentences for both burglary and assault convictions under Pen. Code, § 654, where, in addition to the assault victim, there were two other occupants of a residence that defendant burglarized. Thus, there were two additional victims of the burglary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
