 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kumar v. Superior Court, A114803,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transient occupancy tax required under City of Cloverdale Ordinance No. 257 was not vague in violation of Due Process Clause and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because tax applied equally to all transients, i.e., those occupying a room in any hotel for a period of less than 30 calendar days; it also was not preempted by state law.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Southern California University for Professional Studies, G036809,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied university's motion to compel arbitration of a student's action for violation of UCL and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which included class action allegations, because the student, the only plaintiff before the court, had never agreed to arbitrate her claims. Thus, no grounds existed for compelling arbitration.
|
|||||
| Ohton v. Board of Trustees of California State University, D046617,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Strength and conditioning coach was required to exhaust his judicial remedies before suing California State University for retaliation by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate. However, trial court erred in finding that coach's retaliation claim was satisfactorily addressed within the meaning of Gov. Code, § 8547.12, subd. (c).
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama County Bd. of Supervisors, C049048,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the People sought attorney fees only under private attorney general doctrine codified in Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, trial court erred in not limiting itself to consideration of criterion in that statute; contrary to trial court's conclusion, § 1021.5 did not allow an award of fees based on defendant's obdurate behavior during the litigation.
|
|||||
| People v. Chaney, G036049,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant waived his claim that trial court violated the Confrontation Clause by permitting police officer to testify as to what a nontestifying witness told him because defendant failed to specifically object, as required by Evid. Code, § 353; in any event, statements were made to determine exact nature of emergency and thus were nontestimonial.
|
|||||
| Berg v. Traylor, B188554,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a personal manager sued a minor actor and his mother for breach of contract, the minor was entitled under Fam. Code, § 6710, to disaffirm an agreement that required the minor to arbitrate his disputes with the manager. On this basis alone, a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the manager had to be reversed.
|
|||||
| In re Lauren R., G037590,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in removing a minor from her de facto parent's home and placing her for adoption by her aunt because the relative placement preference of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.3 did not apply to a placement for adoption when no new placement was necessary; rather, the caretaker preference of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (k), applied.
|
|||||
| People v. Merfield, No. B190093,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Plengsangtip, E039985,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affirmative representations to police that no murder happened at a certain time and place were sufficient to support charge of accessory to murder after the fact under Pen. Code, § 32, if requisite falseness, intent to shield the principal, and knowledge were proved, because the denials were an overt attempt to change the picture of what happened.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
