 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, H028369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Housing element of a city's general plan substantially complied with former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), which did not require a land inventory or its accompanying analysis to be site-specific, by stating the number of acres that would be made available for lower income housing and identifying potential infrastructure constraints.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Smith, H029176,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in requiring veteran to pay his former wife a percentage of any veterans' disability payments he might receive during his retirement. The order ensured former wife would receive the benefit of the bargain she made at dissolution in the event veteran elected to receive disability in lieu of retirement in the future.
|
|||||
| Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., G035677,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaint alleging that an insurer's repair estimates did not include items required by industry standards failed to state a claim; neither the policies nor California law specified any particular repair standards, and the complaint did not describe how the insurer's repair estimates would not have restored the vehicles to their pre-loss condition.
|
|||||
| Lori Rubinstein Physical Therapy, Inc. v. PTPN, Inc., B187172,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although contractual relationship between preferred providers group and insurer inhibited non-preferred providers' ability to compete because of low out-of-pocket costs to patients who utilized services of preferred providers' members, there was no antitrust violation, as that competitive disadvantage was expressly authorized by Ins. Code § 10133.
|
|||||
| Mansour v. Degas, B183943,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d), to set aside dismissal order due to trial court's alleged clerical error in sending dismissal to plaintiff's counsel at his previous address, where motion was not filed until more than 10 months after counsel had written received notice of the dismissal.
|
|||||
| People v. Bradus, D047774,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendant's petition to expunge a drug conviction after she successfully completed her probation; although defendant failed to pay appointed attorney fees and probation costs, she was nevertheless entitled to relief under Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (a), because the fees and costs were not conditions of probation.
|
|||||
| People v. Jenan, F049153,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to appoint counsel as to the issue of defendant's competence compelled reversal of a criminal judgment because the trial court twice expressed doubt about defendant's mental competence and warned of a hearing, giving rise to a duty under Pen. Code § 1368, subd. (a), to appoint counsel to represent defendant on that issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
