 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.F. Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc., G035694,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute regarding a construction contract with a school district, suppliers were not entitled to strike, under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, an electrical contractor's lawsuit for libel, slander, and unfair business practices; the suppliers' stop notices and collection efforts were not privileged as communications in anticipation of litigation.
|
|||||
| Hoskins v. Hogstad, C049379,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was properly denied because defendants violated the express 30-day time limit of Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (f), when they served their motion on November 24, 2004, for a January 31, 2005, hearing date and did not request an earlier date by ex parte application. The motion could have been served after the answer.
|
|||||
| Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., B180743,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where homeowners' association was paid by insurer, and association agreed to pay contractor money it received from insurer, but following receipt of funds, association failed and refused to pay over a substantial portion of it to contractor, association improperly sought to enrich itself by forcing insurer to pay twice for the same property loss.
|
|||||
| Pieri v. City and County of San Francisco, A110571,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no conflict between San Francisco's relocation assistance ordinance and the Ellis Act, Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq., because relocation assistance was not limited to low income tenants and the payments required, $ 4,500 to each tenant with a maximum payment of $ 13,500 per unit, did not facially violate the Act.
|
|||||
| Authority for California Cities Excess Liability v. City of Los Altos, H027670,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a joint powers authority claimed that a city was obligated under Gov. Code, §§ 895 & 895.2, to pay it money based on a document signed by the city's police chief, Gov. Code, § 895, did not apply, where the city council never considered or approved the document in a contract, resolution, or ordinance.
|
|||||
| Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, A108246, A109226,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employment discrimination case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sufficient evidence supported a finding that racial discrimination motivated a city's termination of an all-white provisional pool because a memorandum by the city's equal-employment-opportunity manager revealed an intent to push minority appointments without balancing policy interests.
|
|||||
| People v. Herrera, G034848,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was caught shoplifting pseudoephedrine and, absent defendant's own statements, there was a total absence of evidence at the preliminary hearing demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, defendant was entitled to dismissal of the conspiracy charge under the corpus delicti rule.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
