 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Heritage Marketing & Ins. Services, Inc. v. Chrustawka, G037240,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued three defendants who had all moved out of California, the tolling provisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 351, could not be applied without violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Five of plaintiffs' six causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
|
|||||
| In re N.E., G039168,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father who challenged an order terminating parental rights to his daughter, alleging a failure to inquire into whether she might be an Indian child, did not assert on appeal that he had any Indian heritage, any failure to comply with Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.3, subd. (a), and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a), was not prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Superior Court, G039025,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Gang enhancement allegations under Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d), constituted impermissible double punishment because the same gang-related conduct that allegedly violated an anti-gang injunction, giving rise to contempt charges under Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4), was alleged again to obtain an additional form of punishment.
|
|||||
| Padilla v. Rodas, B195284,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a), a homeowner did not have a joint parental duty to supervise a two-year-old child who drowned in a backyard pool because the child was being supervised by his parent when the homeowner left to take a telephone call and there was no indication that the homeowner knew the parent had gone into the house.
|
|||||
| People v. Wills, D050280, D051292,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing for committing a lewd act against a child, the trial court did not have to expressly consider, under Pen. Code, § 1203.066, former subd. (c)(2), whether probation was in the victim's best interests at the time defendant molested her because the victim, the daughter of defendant's girlfriend, was no longer child at time of sentencing.
|
|||||
| Advantage Medical Services, LLC v. Hoffman, G037634,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute involving a wage claim and other issues, the employee was entitled to vacate an interim award pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(6), based on a neutral arbitrator's failure to disclose under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.9, that he and his law firm represented marine insurers that were affiliated with the employer's insurer.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, S151022,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a retaliation claim, an employee's supervisor was not liable because, under Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h), nonemployer individuals were not personally liable for their role in retaliation for which an employer was liable, even though the California Legislature used the word "person" in § 12940, subd. (h), to describe who could not retaliate.
|
|||||
| People v. Whaley, H031647,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be committed to an indeterminate term of commitment retroactive to an initial order committing him as a sexually violent predator. Amendments to Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1, providing for an indeterminate term applied prospectively, not retroactively.
|
|||||
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. |
