LexisNexis
  

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.


   State Courts - California - February 16 - February 17, 2006

  
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, C046813, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Costa v. Superior Court, S136294, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Slight discrepancies between the version of an initiative measure submitted to the California Attorney General and the version circulated for signature did not mislead the public; hence, there was substantial compliance with the title and summary requirements of Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (d), and Elec. Code, §§ 9002, 9004, 9005, 9007.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Christopher, D045112, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's act of falsely identifying himself to the police following defendant's lawful arrest for shoplifting could be characterized as a willful obstruction of a peace officer in the discharge of, or attempt to discharge, the officer's duties within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc., G034933, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Because a contract for home repairs specified that claims were to be arbitrated pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the trial court erred when, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c), it denied a contractor's petition to compel arbitration of the homeowners' professional negligence claims against it and to stay the proceeding.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co., B170079, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Scheller, E036402, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a case of unlawful possession of a firearm, defendant's statements to a probation officer regarding her knowledge of the presence of firearms, which she made after a plea agreement was reached, were inadmissible at trial; due process entitled defendant, after withdrawal of her plea, to be restored to the status quo by excluding the statements.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Prospect Medical Group, Inc. v. Northridge Emergency Medical Group, B172737, B172817, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Delegate of health care plans was not entitled to injunctive relief preventing emergency care providers from balance billing patients who were subscribers of health care plans with which the providers did not have a preexisting contractual relationship; Health & Saf. Code, § 1379, subd. (b), prohibited balance billing only by contracting providers.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.