|
|
| |
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 6 - February 8, 2008
|
| |
Douda v. California Coastal Commission, B188210,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In denying plaintiffs' application for a coastal development permit to build a home, the California Coastal Commission had the power under the California Coastal Act of 1976, Pub. Resources Code, ? 30000 et seq., to unilaterally designate environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy, C055192,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Declaration describing a company's statewide business provided substantial evidence that the company carried on its business throughout California within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 16601; thus, a noncompetition covenant restricting the seller from competing anywhere in California was not illegal under Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 16600.
|
|
| |
City of Los Angeles v. 2000 Jeep Cherokee, B185673 c/w B188182,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case in which a city initiated forfeiture proceedings after an owner's vehicle was seized when he was arrested for soliciting prostitution, because Veh. Code, ? 21, precluded any ordinance regulating vehicle use in soliciting prostitution by requiring forfeiture of the vehicle, city's vehicle forfeiture ordinance was preempted by state law.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Goodman v. Lozano, G036774, G037091,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court was not compelled to declare home buyers as prevailing parties because they had a net monetary recovery; when litigation resulted in a net zero judgment by operation of Code Civ. Proc., ? 877, plaintiff receiving net zero judgment did not fall into category of the party with the net monetary judgment set out in Code Civ. Proc., ? 1032.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback