 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., D053072,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On a negligent hiring and retention claim, a shooter's former employer did not owe a duty of care to the victim, even though the employer sent the shooter on a service call knowing of his domestic violence conviction, because the shooting was two years after the employment was terminated, and after the shooter and victim had a social relationship.
|
|||||
| Conroy v. Regents of University of California, S153002,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims of negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation based on mishandling of donated bodies lacked merit; there was no evidence that the decedent's remains were among those reportedly mishandled, and the donee had exclusive control pursuant to Health & Saf. Code, §§ 7100.1, subd. (a), former 7150.5, subd. (h), former 7154, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center, S156986,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing officer lacked authority to prevent reviewing panel from fulfilling its statutory duty to review peer review committee's recommendation to deny doctor's applications for staff privileges. Hearing officer's authority to impose sanctions under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subd. (d), was limited to granting or denying continuances.
|
|||||
| People v. Samaniego, B205512,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial, there was sufficient corroborating evidence under Pen. Code, § 1111, to support testimony from an alleged accomplice, in part because motive was established by evidence that defendants were gang members and that the murder was motivated to benefit the gang by taxing the victim for selling drugs in gang territory.
|
|||||
| In re Lazor, H032842,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which trial court ordered a new Pen. Code, § 3041, parole suitability hearing for an inmate serving an indeterminate term of 17 years to life for second-degree murder, the trial court erred because it substituted its own view of the gravity and circumstances of the commitment offense for that of the California Board of Parole Hearings.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Corona, D052502,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marital settlement agreement that required the husband to pay half of the wife's income tax obligation could not be interpreted to include an implied requirement pursuant to Civ. Code, §§ 1655, 1656, that the wife select a tax filing status that would minimize her tax liability because the husband showed no legal necessity for the implied term.
|
|||||
| K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist., B209843,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's allegations that a teacher exploited her age of minority, vulnerability, and confidence to seduce her into a sexual relationship were sufficient to invoke the delayed discovery rule of accrual, such that plaintiff's tort claim against a school district was deemed timely for pleading purposes.
|
|||||
| People v. Valenzuela, B209837,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A $ 300 Pen. Code, § 290.3, subd. (a), fine that a trial court imposed against defendant constituted an unauthorized sentence; the trial court should have imposed a $ 200 § 290.3, subd. (a), fine because defendant's sex offense was committed before the 2006 amendment to § 290.3, subd. (a).
|
|||||
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. |
