 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Stamps v. Superior Court, B183741,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee, who claimed that he had been subjected to retaliation, violence, and intimidation by threat of violence, was not barred from asserting violations of Civ. Code, §§ 51.7 and 52.1, as a separate cause of action in an action against an employer alleging wrongful termination and employment discrimination.
|
|||||
| Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker, B175450,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where pesticide manufacturers, in connection with their applications for product registration, submitted data concerning the health effects and environmental impacts of the active ingredients, former Food & Agr. Code, § 12811.5, prohibited administrative consideration of their data without their consent in evaluating others' applications.
|
|||||
| Unfair Fire Tax Com. v. City of Oakland, A109510,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The language of City of Oakland Ord. No. 12556, § 19, allowing an aggrieved person to "appeal" to the city council a resolution to establish a fire suppression district, did not provide an adequate administrative remedy because it lacked any procedural mechanism for submission, evaluation, and resolution of the appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
