|
| |
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 21 - February 22, 2006
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 |
| |
|