 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp, B206789,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs, a parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary, filed two slander complaints against media defendants, a retraction demand did not comply with Civ. Code, ¿ 48a, subd. (1), and the parent was not entitled to recover general damages on the second complaint, where the parent was not named in the retraction demand.
|
|||||
| Episcopal Church Cases, S155094,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, G040675,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumers who alleged that false country of origin labels induced them to buy the sellers' product failed to meet the standing requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿¿ 17204, 17535, to maintain an unfair competition and false advertising action; they did not lose money or property because the mislabeled product that they received was functional.
|
|||||
| People v. Hayes, C057345,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possessing and carrying upon his person a sharp instrument while confined in a penal institution was reversed because a jury instruction created an ambiguity, exploited by the prosecutor, who argued to the jury that it could find defendant guilty without finding the item was "sharp" by the common definition of the term.
|
|||||
| People v. Medina, A120517,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant argued that his original commitment as a sexually violent predator was based on evaluations under a protocol that failed to comply with California's Administrative Procedure Act, defendant forfeited any challenge to the validity of the procedures preceding the filing of the initial petition when he admitted its allegations.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Superior Court, C059686,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a breakup with the father of three children, a nonparent could not join the parents' dormant action under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), Fam. Code, ¿ 7600, et. seq., because she lacked standing. She could not be the presumed mother because there was nothing indicating that the natural mother's parental rights had been terminated.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., A116816, A117648,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 25, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Component manufacturers and suppliers were properly found not liable for failing to warn of dangers inherent in asbestos-containing products supplied by other manufacturers because they were not part of chain of distribution of the injury-causing products, and California law recognized no duty to warn of defects in another manufacturer's products.
|
|||||
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. |
