 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fogarty v. City of Chico, C052576,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitations period of California's Subdivision Map Act applied in a suit against city where land use conditions at issue were restriction on way in which owners could use their property; thus, suit did not arise under California Mitigation Fee Act, and owners' attempt to invoke its protest procedure and extended limitations period was ineffectual.
|
|||||
| Levitz v. The Warlocks, B186707,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract case brought by a musician against a band, although parties agreed in principle to settle the action, they could not reach a final settlement. Because parties never entered into a binding settlement, trial court acted beyond its authority when it relied on Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 225, to dismiss the action.
|
|||||
| Shah v. McMahon, B188972,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an order of the trial court awarding attorney fees to a seller following the trial court's order granting the seller's motion to expunge lis pendens was made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38, prospective buyers' only remedy was to seek a writ of mandate filed within the time limits imposed by Code Civ. Proc., § 405.39.
|
|||||
| Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court, D048963,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued a utility for allegedly participating in manipulating the price of natural gas in California, exercise of specific jurisdiction over the utility, which was headquartered in Missouri, was improper, where plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of sufficient minimum contacts between the utility and the state.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Amanda B., D048591,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in failing to specifically designate appropriate level of placement for a conservatee, as required by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5358, subd. (c)(1). The legislative scheme contemplated that the trial court, not the conservator, was to designate the least restrictive alternative placement appropriate for the conservatee.
|
|||||
| Cryoport Systems v. CNA Ins. Cos., G037056,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an unfair competition action brought by a policyholder against insurers, the policyholder was specifically given the opportunity to amend its complaint to allege that it met the standing requirements under Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17203, 17204, but it failed to do so; thus, it was not entitled to amend again to substitute another plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC, D048002,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Skilled nursing facility could not compel arbitration of a negligence action because the patient's husband did not have authority to agree to arbitration on his wife's behalf when he signed the documents; Health & Saf. Code, § 1599.65, subd. (a), authorized family members to agree to an admission but not to sign an arbitration agreement.
|
|||||
| Heiman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B187206,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a property manager who hired an unlicensed and uninsured contractor to install rain gutters was liable under Lab. Code, § 2750.5, for payment of workers' compensation benefits to the contractor's employee who was injured doing the work, the property manager was not solely liable; the contractor was a dual employer of its employee.
|
|||||
| Simon Marketing, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., B188740,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Losses that a marketing company claimed it sustained after its employee stole winning game pieces were not covered by property insurance policies. The termination of the marketing company's business because a client cancelled its contracts with the marketing company was not a physical loss, or damage, to insured property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
