 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., S137238,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Documents superior court clerk mailed to parties to inform them of an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification did not satisfy Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a), and did not trigger 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal, where no document entitled "Notice of Entry" existed, and appealable minute order was not file-stamped.
|
|||||
| Benach v. County of Los Angeles, B189151, B191036,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No punitive action, was taken, within the meaning of Gov. Code, §§ 3303, 3304, subd. (d)(4), against a sheriff's department pilot when he was reassigned to a detective position, in part because there was no punitive purpose. The pilot was found not to have committed any wrongdoing and was transferred because of a lack of harmony and cooperation.
|
|||||
| California Assn. for Health Services at Home v. State Dept. of Health Services, C051294,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home health care providers had standing to enforce the duties of the department of health services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), to review reimbursement rates annually under state Medicaid plan, but it was not a function of a writ of mandamus in that setting to compel the setting of rates, regardless of the providers' showing of inadequacy.
|
|||||
| California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc., G034968,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit alleging conflict of interest in violation of Gov. Code, § 1090, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that an attorney who served as a public agency's outside counsel owed fiduciary duties to the agency; § 1090 was applicable to an attorney who could exert considerable influence over a public agency's contracting decisions.
|
|||||
| In re Sheena K. , S123980,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation condition that a juvenile defendant not associate with anyone "disapproved of by probation" was unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment because the juvenile court did not require that in order to be in violation, defendant had to know which persons were disapproved of by the probation officer. Modification was necessary.
|
|||||
| SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc., B182088,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an antitrust lawsuit brought by a mobilehome dealer did not involve a landlord/tenant dispute, it did not involve the direct application of Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), Civ. Code, § 798 et seq., provisions in the context for which the MRL was designed; thus, dismissed defendants could not recover attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 798.85.
|
|||||
| Vazquez de Mercado v. Superior Court, G037194,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An action brought by purchasers of a horse against a veterinarian for allegedly failing to advise them of the horse's physical problem before their purchase was not subject to the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 where there was no allegation of a wrongful death and the alleged economic loss was not a personal injury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
