 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, No. B191879,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unions lacked standing under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 to assert rights of members who had not assigned wage recovery rights to them; assignment purporting to transfer to unions my right to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of employees was not transfer by owner of right to recover money or other personal property.
|
|||||
| Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, G036587,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a defamation action brought by public figure plaintiffs against ex-employee, the trial court should have granted the ex-employee's anti-SLAPP special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 because plaintiffs failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged statement was made with actual malice.
|
|||||
| Franklin Capital Corp. v. Wilson, G036152,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court could not dismiss a debt collection action pursuant to an order to show cause (OSC) after the creditor validly exercised its right under Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(1), to dismiss voluntarily; the pendency of the OSC was not equivalent to the commencement of trial under § 581, subd. (a)(6), because dismissal was not inevitable.
|
|||||
| Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., B183974,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court, in ruling on a parent companys demurrer to its subsidiarys complaint alleging misappropriation of funds, erred in taking judicial notice of the enforceability and proper interpretation of a letter agreement under Evid. Code, § 450, by deciding those questions where the parties disputed and continued to dispute those questions.
|
|||||
| Munoz v. City of Union City, A110121,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising from a death in a police shooting, the trial court erred by reducing the recovery of the deceased's family by the percent of fault allocated to city by a jury, after a finding that sovereign immunity barred the city's direct negligence, because the city was not a tortfeasor; thus multiple-defendant principles were inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., C052286,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was not entitled to summary judgment in an action alleging that a supervisor made unwanted sexual advances while returning from sales activities; under Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1), the employer was strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor that did not result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment.
|
|||||
| People v. Guevara, No. B182951,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were conditionally reversed, and case was remanded for a new Pitchess hearing, where there was no indication trial court actually reviewed a list submitted in support of custodian's decision not to produce any police officer personnel records for trial court's examination, and appellate court was unable to review that list.
|
|||||
| People v. Mays, D046696,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict a defendant who ran an escort service of money laundering under Pen. Code, § 186.10, subd. (a), because it showed deposits of $ 5,000 in criminally-derived cash in a 10-day period. Although there was evidence that some activities were legal, the escort and prostitution businesses were inextricably intertwined.
|
|||||
| People v. Vogel, C051861,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collateral estoppel barred defendant from relitigating whether a police officer had probable cause to arrest him because the issue he sought to litigate was identical to the issue expressly decided both by another trial court and the appellate court in a case occurring in another county that resulted in a final judgment of conviction.
|
|||||
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. |
