 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin, S144831,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Gov. Code, § 835, driver had burden to establish that county negligently or wrongly created dangerous condition at intersection or that it had notice of condition for a long enough time to protect against danger. Because jury found that county neither acted negligently nor had notice of dangerous condition, county was not liable to driver.
|
|||||
| People v. Stone, A116034, A117978,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for petty theft, defendant's assertions on the deficiencies of the phrase "abiding conviction" in the burden of proof instruction had to give way to the great weight of legal authority approving that very language.
|
|||||
| Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc., B190318,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which police officer sued ambulance company after officer, who while accompanying arrestee in the back of an ambulance, was injured when the ambulance hit a curb, because action was subject to California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, trial court properly admitted collateral payments evidence pursuant to Civ. Code, § 3333.1.
|
|||||
| Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, B192375,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in applying Code Civ. Proc., § 1033, subd. (a), to deny employee's motion for attorney fees under Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b), in a statutory retaliation action where employee's recovery was below the jurisdictional minimum of $ 25,000; in actions brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, § 1033 did not apply.
|
|||||
| Netzley v. Superior Court, E040033,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 180-day time period under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) was tolled during the period that defendant was in disciplinary segregation because defendant was "unable to stand trial," within the meaning of the IAD tolling provision, Pen. Code, § 1389, art. VI, subd. (a), due to his own conduct, specifically, a first degree assault.
|
|||||
| Service Employees International Union, Local 250 v. Colcord, A116364,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err under 29 C.F.R. pt. 541.602 in awarding to a union employer costs it incurred in providing salary and benefits to an employee during time he was secretly organizing a competing union because employee supported himself with compensation received from union while breaching his fiduciary duty by plotting against its interests.
|
|||||
| Stroud v. Tunzi, B194917,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order compelling attorneys to release funds to client was proper where documents modifying original contingency fee agreement did not comply with Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6147; attorneys did not sign them, they did not state contingency rate or discuss costs, and they did not disclose that attorneys' fees were negotiable and not established by law.
|
|||||
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. |
