|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - February 25 - February 26, 2008
|
| |
Henry v. Superior Court, B200690,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, February 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that homeowners, sued by contractor for injuries suffered as a result of a fall on their property, could not introduce evidence that medical malpractice by hospital emergency room doctors, who were not parties to action, aggravated contractor's injuries because liability could be apportioned under Civ. Code, § 1431.2.3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Real Estate Analytics, LLC v. Vallas, D049161; D049890,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action for breach of a contract to sell a large parcel of commercial coastal property, refusing to grant specific performance was error under Civ. Code, § 3387, because the presumption that monetary damages were inadequate was not rebutted merely by the fact that the buyer's primary motivation was to quickly turn the property for a profit.
|
|
| |
Searles Valley Minerals Operations, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, D049905,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Utility companies' purchases of coal were not exempt from the use tax under Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 6007, 6008, as property purchased for resale in the regular course of business because the coal was not incorporated into a final product within the meaning of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 1525, but functioned as a catalyst in producing electricity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|