 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
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. |
