 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baugh v. Garl, No. B176714,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (b), did not bar an action to enjoin defendant from tapping into a water pipeline, even if plaintiffs had suspicions that defendant had trespassed on their property 7-12 years before they sued, because the trespass was continuing but not necessarily permanent. Therefore, the statute ran from the last act of trespass.
|
|||||
| Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Superior Court, G035672,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge properly allowed precertification discovery to identify potential class-action plaintiffs to replace the class counsel, who could not act both as counsel and class representative. The reviewing court directed that the trial court modify the letter to be sent to the prospective class-action plaintiffs to protect their privacy.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Ben C., D045669,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied conservatees' petitions for reimbursement of expert costs in conservatorship proceedings under the California Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, where counsel for the conservatees did not seek a timely order for reimbursement as required by Super. Ct. S.D. County, Local Rules, rule 8.1.16.
|
|||||
| In re Enrique O., F046608,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ICWA was inapplicable to juvenile's Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, proceedings because the offenses he committed, sexual battery and vandalism, placed him squarely within ICWA's delinquency exception; his placement outside the home was a result of his commission of acts which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed crimes under 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1).
|
|||||
| Marvin Lieblein, Inc. v. Shewry, C050233,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a pharmacist's application for continued enrollment as a Medi-Cal pharmacy provider pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14043.2, subd. (a), for failure to disclose professional discipline was proper; although the pharmacist asserted that the failure to disclose was inadvertent, proof of intent was not required.
|
|||||
| People v. Strong, Case No.: 2003006452,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant refused drug treatment as a condition of his deferred entry of judgment, defendant refused drug treatment as a condition of probation. Therefore, defendant was ineligible for drug treatment probation under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, commonly referred to as Proposition 36.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. Yarborough, B179103,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner against correctional employees, a trial court's order that waived all of the prisoner's fees and costs was binding even though it was erroneous under Gov. Code, § 68511.3, subd. (e).
|
|||||
| TIG Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Homestore, Inc., B176533,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ins. Code §§ 331, 359, 361, 650, permitted insurer to rescind directors and officers liability insurance policy where one of insureds misrepresented material information in connection with insurance renewal. Because the policy did not provide otherwise, rescission applied to all insureds under the contract, even those unaware of misrepresentations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
