 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jones v. Gregory, G030347,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: CEO of a suspended corporation was not personally liable as a corporate officer or agent for unpaid wages owed to the corporation's employees on the basis that he had operational control of the corporation because the California Labor Code did not support imposing personal liability for unpaid wages on corporate officers or agents as employers.
|
|||||
| National Casualty Co. v. Sovereign General Ins. Services, Inc., C049036,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a claims-made policy of errors and omissions insurance required that claims be made within the policy period and brought in the United States, Puerto Rico, or Canada, the word brought was ambiguous; its reasonable interpretation was that a claim was brought where a demand was made, not where legal proceedings were filed.
|
|||||
| North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, D045438,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action under the Unruh Act, physicians who refused to perform intrauterine insemination had a potential defense of free exercise of religion because they raised a triable issue as to whether refusal was based on a lesbian patient's marital status, which was not protected when the alleged violation occurred, rather than her sexual orientation.
|
|||||
| Aaron v. Dunham, A109488,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued defendants, seeking to establish a prescriptive easement, the posting of a permission to pass sign or signs by a lessee and not by defendants or their agent, as required by Civ. Code, § 1008, did not prevent plaintiffs' predecessors from acquiring prescriptive rights to a road that ran across defendants' property.
|
|||||
| Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, A110311,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For purposes of calculating postjudgment interest on an award to employees in a class action, the judgment was satisfied when the employer deposited funds into a trust account held in the name of class counsel and a claims administrator because "deposit with the court" under Code Civ. Proc., § 685.030, subd. (d), embraced payment to that fund.
|
|||||
| Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, B184608, B184610,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No private right of action existed with respect to allegations that insurers violated Ins. Code, § 1861.02, by charging higher premiums and denying good driver discounts to drivers with no prior auto insurance or no continuous coverage; the statutory scheme of Proposition 103 did not indicate voter intent to create a private right of action.
|
|||||
| Gill Petrolium, Inc. v. Hayer, C047075,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court had the equitable power to relieve a gas station lessee from a forfeiture of the lease and per diem damages, which were awarded following a dispute concerning storage-tank fees, because Code Civ. Proc., § 1179, did not limit a trial court's equitable discretion to modify per diem damages awarded in the judgment.
|
|||||
| Zengen, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, B179022,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action to recover a sum embezzled through unauthorized funds transfers, common law claims against a bank were preempted by Division 11 of the California Uniform Commercial Code, Cal. U. Com. Code, § 11101 et seq., which provided the exclusive remedy for unauthorized wire funds transfers.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
