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 27 - March 2, 2009

  
Christensen v. Smith, G039923G040103, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, No. H031658, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
GeneThera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Corp., B207024, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Tort complaint arising from an allegedly unethical settlement offer in a shareholder action was properly struck as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under Code Civ. Proc., ? 425.16, because it arose from protected activity and the absolute litigation privilege of Civ. Code, ? 47, subd. (b), precluded any probability of prevailing.

Search Cases for Free

  
Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, B199461, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, March 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Disclaimers in a whole life insurance policy regarding payment of premium costs from earnings were not so clear and obvious as to trigger notice as to fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims under Code Civ. Proc., ? 338, subd. (d), and unfair competition claims under Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 17208, or to preclude reliance as a matter of law.

Search Cases for Free

  
Budrow v. Dave & Buster's of California, Inc., B205026, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although plaintiff alleged that tip pool distributions to restaurant employees who did not provide direct table service violated Lab. Code, ? 351, the statute did not impose a "direct table service" requirement on tip pools. Thus, the restaurant's bartenders could participate in tip pools.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top