 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doran v. North State Grocery, Inc., C050187,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a disability discrimination case against a grocery store, an award of attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a), was reversed because the judgment for the customer was based on an offer to compromise that did state the store's liability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The customer could not then seek to establish a denial of rights.
|
|||||
| In re Anthony C., C048529,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a psychologist did not prepare a formal risk assessment evaluation of a juvenile sex offender and was unprepared at trial, his testimony did not constitute substantial evidence that the juvenile had serious difficulty controlling sexually deviant behavior for purposes of an extended civil commitment under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1800 et seq.
|
|||||
| In re Javier G., D046520,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court properly placed a mother's two oldest children in separate group homes pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387, where substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's conclusion that a previous dispositional order was not effective in rehabilitating or protecting the children.
|
|||||
| People v. Le, H028821,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, C049150,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation insurance carrier did not breach its contract with an employer by settling a third-party claim for an amount alleged to be unreasonably low; pursuant to Lab. Code, §§ 3850, 3852, 3853, 3856, subd. (b), the carrier had three statutory options to assert its right to subrogation, and it had no duty to pursue subrogation recovery.
|
|||||
| People v. McDonald, A108690,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for possession of a controlled substance, a search incident to defendant's detention was proper where the officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a public nuisance in violation of Pen. Code, § 370, by urinating in public.
|
|||||
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. |
