 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Guardianship of Ann S., S143723,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of a mother's parental rights under Prob. Code, § 1516.5, after a court found by clear and convincing evidence that adoption by guardians would be in child's best interest, was proper because § 1516.5 was facially constitutional, and retroactive application of § 1516.5 was consistent with due process and with Prob. Code, § 3, subd. (h).
|
|||||
| Hildebrandt v. St. Helena Unified School Dist., A119738,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district properly released two part-time certificated school psychologists while retaining similarly credentialed full-time psychologist with lesser seniority because part-time psychologists did not have right under Ed. Code, §§ 44955 or 44956, to force district to divide full-time position to accommodate their desire for part-time position.
|
|||||
| In re Charlotte D., S142028,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's parental rights to his child was subject to termination pursuant to Prob. Code, § 1516.5, where the father manifestly failed to fulfill his parental responsibilities and did not promptly defend his custodial rights.
|
|||||
| Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles, B200505,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public employee was not required to exhaust the administrative remedy provided by Lab. Code, § 98.7, before asserting statutory whistleblower claims. Gov. Code, § 815, barred his common law actions against the public employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for retaliation in violation of public policy.
|
|||||
| People v. Earle, H031525, H032982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to sever charges of indecent exposure and sexual assault was an abuse of discretion under Pen. Code, § 954, because evidence of the indecent exposure would have been inadmissible in a separate trial of the assault, the weak assault case was bolstered by the strong exposure case, and the only countervailing interest was systemic economy.
|
|||||
| Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., S149344,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even assuming a claim for implied contractual indemnity may be predicated on an alleged breach of an easement duty, a utility's immunity from liability to an injured child under Civ. Code, § 846, nonetheless barred a property owner from recovering indemnification from the utility as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., B205945,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal to federal court automatically suspended state court jurisdiction over a products liability action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340, until a certified copy of the remand order was mailed to the superior court as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1446, 1447(c); this period had to be excluded under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, subd. (a), 583.420.
|
|||||
| The Nethercutt Collection v. Regalia, B200481,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements by defendants that plaintiff demanded a commission to which he was not entitled, and was fired because others would not work for him and would leave if he stayed, should have been presented to jury as slander per quod rather than as slander per se; statements did not necessarily injure him so as to fit within Civ. Code, § 46, subd. (3).
|
|||||
| Bains v. Moores, D052533,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders presented insufficient evidence of directors' knowledge of fraudulent accounting practices to avoid summary judgment; the directors' sales of stock were not shown to have taken place under suspicious circumstances, and no significant inconsistencies were shown between accounting information provided to the board and public disclosures.
|
|||||
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. |
