 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 02 Development, LLC v. 607 South Park, LLC, B200226,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hotel owner's argument that there was no enforceable contract to sell hotel to assignee because assignee did not exist when assignment agreement was executed failed as a matter of law. Once assignee came into existence, it could enforce any pre-organization contract made in its behalf, such as assignment agreement, if it adopted or ratified it.
|
|||||
| Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., B164398, B169083,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tobacco liability case, a new trial was ordered on punitive damages because prejudicial error occurred under the Fourteenth Amendment when trial court declined to instruct the jury that it should not impose punishment for harms suffered by nonparties. The $ 28 billion award could be linked to an argument about 28,000 smoking-related deaths.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Superior Court, No. H032068,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a death penalty case, defendant's mental retardation hearing had to be reopened because there was good cause in furtherance of justice under Pen. Code, ¿ 1376, subd. (b)(2), where a witness recanted his earlier testimony and claimed that his testimony was false because he had confused petitioner with another person with the same first name.
|
|||||
| County of Ventura v. Channel Islands Marina, Inc., No. B183532,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a county took a lessee's property and breached the lease by not consenting to removal of improvements, the county did not cause the lessee to sustain damages in inverse condemnation under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1263.320, subd. (a), or for breach of lease because Coastal Commission regulations would have prevented removal of the improvements.
|
|||||
| Holmgren v. County of Los Angeles, B194130,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Engineers who were employed by contracting firms to perform work for a county were not common law employees of the county, and they were not entitled to civil service and retirement benefits because they did not meet the definition of county employees under Gov. Code, ¿ 31469, subd. (a), and L.A. County Code, ¿ 5.20.010.
|
|||||
| People v. Batman, C053776,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of forgery and three counts of identity theft, DNA penalty assessments imposed by the trial court pursuant to Gov. Code, ¿ 76104.6, violated the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws because defendant committed the offenses prior to the effective date of ¿ 76104.6.
|
|||||
| People v. Nicholls, C054252,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search warrant application was supported by more than detective's expert opinion that child molesters collected and stored child pornography, as it was supported by victim's statements that defendant had recently molested her and by his storing his computer in garage attic of his parents' home and asking his mother not to let anyone "mess" with it.
|
|||||
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. |
