|
|
| |
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 25, 2010
|
| |
|
| |
Diaz v. Carcamo, No. B211127,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a collision case involving an allegation of negligent hiring against a driver's employer, evidence of driving history was admissible under Evid. Code, ? 352, even though the employer conceded its vicarious liability, because that concession did not establish the degree of its liability in an apportionment of noneconomic damages.
|
|
| |
Elliott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A125585,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a workers' compensation case involving a recommendation for spinal surgery, the employee's failure to object to a denial of treatment by the employer's utilization review did not mean that the employer was not obligated to provide the surgery because it was the employer, not the employee, who had to initiate the request for a second opinion.
|
|
| |
Ghadrdan v. Gorabi, B210895,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 25, 2010, Decided, February 25, 2010
View this case - free
|
Overview: Corporate conviction was inadmissible to impeach an individual in civil litigation because Evid. Code, ? 788, did not apply; there was no showing of personal involvement in the criminal activity such as might render the corporate conviction admissible under Evid. Code, ? 1101, subd. (b); and excluding it under Evid. Code, ? 352, was reasonable.
|
|
| |
In re Marriage of Macmanus, G041248,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion under Fam. Code, ? 3600, when it considered a history of domestic violence as stated in Fam. Code, ? 4320, subd. (i), in reallocating back child support to back spousal support based on evidence that the husband had been incarcerated because of domestic violence and that community assets had been dissipated.
|
|
| |
Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B214234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Workers' compensation claimant was an independent contractor under Lab. Code, ? 3353, and not an employee under Lab. Code, ? 3351, in pruning bushes; although the hirer presented no evidence, the claimant's own testimony that he worked for many clients and no one told him how to do the job rebutted the Lab. Code, ? 3357, presumption of employment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, B188106,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a consumer's action against a mouthwash manufacturer pursuant to the UCL, a trial court's order certifying a class action was vacated. The class was grossly overbroad, as many class members, if not most, were never exposed to the alleged misrepresentations regarding the mouthwash. In addition, the consumer was an inadequate class representative.
|
|
| |
Phan v. Pham, G041666,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2010, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant, who received an allegedly defamatory e-mail and forwarded it to someone else, was immune under 47 U.S.C. ? 230(c)(1), where defendant, who included a message preceding the actual forwarded document, made no material contribution to the alleged defamation when he stated: "Everything will come out to the daylight."
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback