|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - February 24, 2010
|
| |
Daniels v. Robbins, G039984,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a malicious prosecution case, an anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly granted to the attorneys of the opposing party in a prior suit. There was no probability of prevailing as to malice, despite the client's ill will and a lack of evidentiary support, because there was no affirmative evidence that they knew the case lacked probable cause.
|
|
| |
Donahue v. Donahue, G040628, G041503,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the record did not show that a trial court presented with a trustee's Prob. Code, ? 17200, petition adequately considered the amount of attorney fees reasonably incurred in representing the trustee and whether such fees were reasonably and prudently incurred for the benefit of the trust, a remand was necessary.
|
|
| |
Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Assn., B217578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Voluntary bar association did not engage in an unfair business practice in violation of California's UCL when, allegedly, it unilaterally refused to sell its mailing list to plaintiff, who intended to offer low-priced mediation services in competition with higher-priced services offered by some of the association's members.
|
|
| |
|
| |
McAdams v. Monier, Inc., C051841,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Action alleging misrepresentation of a product was suitable for class treatment under Civ. Code, ? 1781, subd. (b), because an inference of common reliance was sufficient to show causation as to each class member and an allegation of failure to disclose facts contrary to the manufacturer's affirmative representations fell within Civ. Code, ? 1770.
|
|
| |
Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, A123859,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: City was not required under Pub. Resources Code, ? 21151, to prepare an environmental impact report for an agreement to support and make municipal services available to a tribal casino development because the casino would be built outside the city and thus was not a project approved by the city under Pub. Resources Code, ?? 21065, 21080, subd. (a).
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Perez, H033386,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Child molestation charges relating to events in 1995 to 1996 were not time barred because the unlimited time frame in Pen. Code, ? 799, for an offense punishable by life imprisonment applied, based on a finding under Pen. Code, ? 667.61, subd. (e)(5), that "in the present case or cases" there was another violation involving another victim.
|
|
| |
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, A122452,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 24, 2010, Decided, February 24, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback