 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Queen Villas Homeowners Assn. v. TCB Property Management, G037019,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action by a homeowners association against a property management company for failure to thwart self-dealing by one of the association's directors, the association's agreement to indemnify the management company did not apply because there were no indicia to bring the agreement beyond the usual context of third party indemnification.
|
|||||
| Small v. Superior Court, G037041,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case relating to a wage order under Lab. Code, § 1182, the adopted definition of work unit was not arbitrary because it was based on the recommendation of two-thirds of members of wage board, which was comprised of representatives of both employers and employees under Lab. Code, § 1178.5, and was implicitly supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, C052554,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because employee failed to challenge an adverse notice of findings from State Personnel Board (SPB), the notice of findings were deemed to be the final decision of the SPB; thus, employee's suit under California's Whistleblower Protection Act, which was based on same factual claims as her SPB complaint, was barred by principles of issue preclusion.
|
|||||
| Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, G035046,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Housing developer's excess insurer had an obligation to pay the developer's defense costs incurred in a construction defect lawsuit; hence, the subcontractors' insurer, which was not primarily liable for all of the claimed loss because some claims were not related to the subcontractors' work, was entitled to reimbursement via equitable subrogation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
