 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adaimy v. Ruhl, B193745,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an investment fraud case, a notice of appeal filed more than 60 days after notice of entry of judgment and more than 30 days after notice of entry of an order denying a new trial was untimely under Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.104(a), 8.108(a); notice of the entries was properly served by mailing to only one of the investor's multiple attorneys.
|
|||||
| California Faculty Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., C054725,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an unfair labor practice claim under Gov. Code, § 3571, subd. (c), the Public Employment Relations Board improperly concluded that a university had no duty to bargain as to a change of parking location because the subject of where employees were allowed to park involved the employment relationship and was within the scope of representation.
|
|||||
| City of Fremont v. Fisher, A116935,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in a condemnation proceeding when it permitted the owners to present evidence to the jury on temporary severance damages under Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.410, based on impairment of a hypothetical use; the owners produced no evidence that a temporary construction easement substantially impaired actual intended use.
|
|||||
| Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc., B198883,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was entitled to award of attorney fees as matter of right under Lab. Code, §§ 1194, subd. (a), 2699, subd. (g), 226, subd. (e), after favorable settlement of claim for a small amount of overtime wages; given nature of dispute, appellate court reasonably could award small amount of fees, and remand for determination of fee was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Cooper, No. B195072,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allocating to wife the entirety of an optional settlement 2 survivor benefit, where there was no evidence that husband, at the time he selected option 2, intended to forever relinquish his community property interest in the option 2 survivor benefit, regardless of whether the parties legally separated or divorced.
|
|||||
| In re Rachel L., B192878,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency case involving parents who home schooled their children, the education of the children at their home, whatever the quality of that education, did not qualify for the private full-time day school or credentialed tutor exemptions from compulsory education in a public full-time day school set forth in Ed. Code, §§ 48222 & 48224.
|
|||||
| Jakks Pacific, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B201466,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After proposed neutral arbitrators were nominated under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6, in a dispute concerning a manufacturing and sales agreement, a party could not disqualify its opponent's nominees on the ground that they did not provide disclosures under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.9, when nominated; disclosure was not required before appointment.
|
|||||
| McCann v. Foster Wheeler, B189898,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In case in which plaintiff, a California resident, who was exposed to asbestos during installation of a boiler in Oklahoma in the 1950's, sued defendant New York manufacturer, because California's interests were more significantly impaired by application of Oklahoma law than the converse, trial court erred in applying Oklahoma's statute of repose.
|
|||||
| Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, S143999,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action against a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, plaintiffs were successful parties under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, in that they obtained a judgment mandating a number of election reforms, but were not entitled, in addition to attorney fees, to expert witness fees under § 1021.5, which did not permit an award of expert witness fees.
|
|||||
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. |
