 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bayer-Bel v. Litovsky, B197829,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort action arising from a head-on collision, an unlicensed driver's liability for noneconomic damages was several under Civ. Code, ¿ 1431.2, subd. (a), and was limited to the amount of fault allocated to her by the jury because the liability of defendant passenger for negligent entrustment was primary, not vicarious.
|
|||||
| People v. Reyes, B196415,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Com., A114647,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Coastal Commission erred in designating an owner's property an environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA) because California Coastal Act of 1976, Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 30000 et seq., granted the Commission no power to declare property an ESHA during a CDP appeal; Commission improperly assumed powers expressly reserved to local government.
|
|||||
| Verga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C055711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court, A116116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a bank's alleged misrepresentations and omissions coincided with a security transaction, the broadly applicable "in connection with" requirement for the application of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. ¿ 78bb(f), was met, thereby precluding a state class action complaint by trust beneficiaries.
|
|||||
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. |
