 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc., B203317,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class arbitration waiver was unconscionable with respect to company's alleged denial of meal and rest periods to employees in violation of California's Labor Code, given the modest size of the potential individual recovery, the potential for retaliation, and the fact that absent members of the class may have been ill informed about their rights.
|
|||||
| In re E.S., A118547,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's assistance of a juvenile defendant was deficient under U.S. Const., 6th Amend., because counsel (1) failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, (2) sought an inadequate continuance based on a mistake of law, and (3) failed to move for a substitution of counsel knowing he was unable to devote the time and resources necessary.
|
|||||
| People v. Camacho, B207048,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the charging document, the opening statement, the arguments of counsel, and the jury instructions all identified the offense in count two as robbery, a reference to carjacking in the verdict form was evidently a clerical error and the conviction was for robbery; the clerical error could be disregarded pursuant to Pen. Code, §§ 1258, 1404.
|
|||||
| People v. Dean, E041513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing State's experts to testify to inadmissible hearsay. Facts testified to by the experts were admissible and, in fact, were admitted into evidence from other sources.
|
|||||
| Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., D049983,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance exchange and its attorney-in-fact violated Ins. Code, § 381's disclosure requirement where term "premium," as used in § 381, subd. (f), included a service charge imposed for payment in full of stated premium for insurance policy's one-month term; doctrine of substantial compliance did not apply to disclosures required by § 381, subd. (f).
|
|||||
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. |
