 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gallo Cattle Co. v. Kawamura, C053067,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of relief to milk and cheese producer from milk production assessments imposed by state agency was proper where milk producer advertising program did not unconstitutionally compel speech under Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, because it used a cheese package certification seal, a label that boosted sales only of cheese makers who agreed to use it.
|
|||||
| In re J.G., C055155,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2367, subd. (d)(1) & (d)(2), was void as to an inmate and others similarly situated, i.e., inmates serving California sentences of life with possibility of parole housed in prisons outside of California under Federal Witness Protection Program, because it exceeded scope of authority conferred by Pen. Code, § 3041.5.
|
|||||
| In re L. (J.), A117045,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Biological father had standing under Fam. Code, § 7575, subd. (b)(3)(A), to seek a paternity test and, after it established that he was the father, to move to set aside another man's voluntary declaration of paternity because he did so in the context of a dependency proceeding, which was an action to establish an order for custody of a minor child.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc., G036432,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action for unauthorized use of an authenticator's name on 14,060 certificates of authentication (COA's), the authenticator was entitled to $ 750 in damages under Civ. Code, § 3344, subd. (a), not to $ 750 for each COA. He could not state 14,060 causes of action because his mental anguish occurred when the first COA was issued without consent.
|
|||||
| Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, B194088,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's published interview about his employer's working conditions was a protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute because the publishing magazine was a public forum within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(3), and the statements concerned an issue of public interest, given the extensive interest in employer's owner.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Gallegos v. The Pacific Lumber Co., A112028,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sarah B. v. Floyd B., D050080,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although father argued that trial court erred when it did not find mother in violation of temporary restraining order issued pursuant to Fam. Code, § 7700, in conjunction with mother's petition to establish a parental relationship on the ground mother moved with child to Colorado, father failed to establish that trial court abused its discretion.
|
|||||
| Vasquez v. Happy Valley Union School Dist., C054780,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a teacher was not retained for the next succeeding year pursuant to Ed. Code, § 44929.21, subd. (b), the teacher did not qualify to be a permanent teacher, even though the school district had misclassified the teacher as a substitute teacher. As a substitute, the teacher could be dismissed at any time and without cause.
|
|||||
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. |
