 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, A120228,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee election under Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (c), had to be set aside because voters were instructed to cast signed ballots with their names and addresses printed on the face of the ballots and were given no assurances that ballots would be kept confidential, which was a denial of the right to vote under Elec. Code, § 16100, subd. (e).
|
|||||
| Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's Casino, A119035, A119036,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A casino violated Lab. Code, § 351, where it took the tips given to its dealers and distributed a portion of that property to its agents, its shift managers; the dealers had a private right of action under § 351, and restitution was a proper remedy because the dealers had a property interest in their tips under § 351.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Brown v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, A116792,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment that tuna companies were not required under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, to provide any warnings on their tuna products sold in California was affirmed on the narrow ground that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that methylmercury in tuna was naturally occurring.
|
|||||
| People v. Harris, D052257,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it sent defendant to prison instead of granting him mandatory probation under Proposition 36 where jury had made express finding that he transported cocaine base for his personal use within meaning of Pen. Code, § 1210, subd. (a), which rendered the crime one for nonviolent drug possession offense.
|
|||||
| Robert J. v. Catherine D., D051552,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a Fam. Code, § 3027.1, motion for sanctions was not filed within the time provided in Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1702, 8.104, the timeliness of the motion did not have to be analyzed under equitable principles based on laches because this issue was a matter of first impression and the court's conclusion was not retroactive.
|
|||||
| Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, S150371,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Giammarrusco v. Simon, B199998,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Prob. Code, § 21320, claim of surviving trustor's daughter that ambiguous language of trust provisions establishing three methods of exercising limited power of appointment was result of a scrivener's error, and that error should therefore be remedied in accordance with grantors' intent, did not violate no contest clauses in the trusts.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, F053858,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of Pen. Code, § 290, there was more than sufficient evidence to support conclusion that he began "residing" in Madera when he returned there after being paroled. In essence, defendant began "residing" in Madera at the same time he came into Madera.
|
|||||
| United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, A120912,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a former client's suit to enjoin a law firm from engaging in a successive representation, in alleged violation of Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310(E), an anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly denied because protected activity was only incidental to the principal thrust of the complaint: representation by the firm adverse to the former client.
|
|||||
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. |
