 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Barbara R., D046405,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not have to renew a detriment finding under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) before terminating a mother's parental rights, despite an 11-month period between the referral and permanency hearings, because the mother did not show that the finding was stale, given, among other things, the deterioration of the relationship between the hearings.
|
|||||
| Kuperman v. San Diego County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1, D045751,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County assessment appeals board's finding that the county tax assessor lacked jurisdiction to consider property owner's application for a reduction in the base-year value of property was proper because the owner's claim fell within the scope of Rev. & Tax. Code, § 51.5, subd. (b), and was not timely brought within the four-year limitations period.
|
|||||
| Lincoln Property Co., N.C., Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., A106426,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured was barred by a judgment entered on a cross-complaint in an underlying personal injury action from bringing an action against insurer for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, where insured's claim was part of the same primary right asserted in underlying action in which it alleged that insurer breached its duty to defend it.
|
|||||
| Zenith Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., D046783,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation award of facility fees to two lien claimants was not supported by substantial evidence where the lien claimants failed to disprove the insurance carrier's allegation that they were unlicensed and unaccredited; in accordance with Lab. Code, §§ 5705, 3202.5, the lien claimants had the burden of proof on this issue.
|
|||||
| Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Shewry, B172699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Overpayments made to a provider of medical services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries were subject to recoupment where the provider, having obtained a delegation amendment to another medical center's prime contract as sole provider in the area, billed more than the contract rate for certain patients; the contract unambiguously included those patients.
|
|||||
| Maudlin v. Pacific Decision Sciences Corp., G035060,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retiree's contract with his former employer was enforceable, even assuming it was a stock repurchase, because the transaction was not illegal under the current versions of Corp. Code, §§ 166, 500, under which the retained earnings test no longer had to be met at the time the contract was executed, but only when the payments were made.
|
|||||
| People v. Chapple, A110076,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because whether or not body armor seized from defendant's home by officer met certification standards involved concepts beyond common experience, and, thus, was not proper subject for lay opinion, a finding that officer's testimony was sufficient for purposes of defendant's preliminary hearing for violating Pen. Code, § 12370, subd. (a), was error.
|
|||||
| People v. Laughlin, F047242,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for driving with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from pursuing peace officers in violation of Veh. Code, § 2800.2 was affirmed. Section 2800.2, subd. (b), did not create an impermissible mandatory presumption, but was instead a rule of substantive law.
|
|||||
| Pietrobon v. Libarle, A109972,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute of frauds under Civ. Code, § 1624, did not render a settlement agreement between an attorney and his former client invalid, even though the agreement was not to be performed within a year from the making thereof, because the former client admitted in his pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that such a contract was made.
|
|||||
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. |
