LexisNexis
  

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.


   State Courts - California - March 26, 2007

  
Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments, G037377, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment because his mistake in assuming that he could competently represent himself at trial did not constitute mistake or excusable neglect that justified a set aside under Code Civ. Proc., § 473; he accepted the risks of proceeding without counsel and was stuck with the outcome.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc., B190771, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Because a corporate officer's employment contract with an employer that had significant interstate activities involved interstate commerce within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 2, his right to a judicial forum for his unpaid wages claim under Lab. Code, § 229, was preempted, and an arbitration clause in the employment contract was enforceable.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Superior Court, D049257, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Fee for use of an installment payment option for automobile insurance did not have to be disclosed in the policy because the fee was interest on the unpaid balance of the annual lump sum premium, and interest charged for the time value of money was not a premium, as that term was used in the disclosure provision of Ins. Code § 381, subd. (f).

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Marcey v. Romero, D048658, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court did not err when it denied expert witness fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (d), to a party who withdrew a § 998 offer of settlement before it statutorily expired; the offer, because it was revoked before the expiration of the period statutorily specified by § 998, forfeited its status as an offer under the provisions of § 998.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Castro-Vasquez, B192721, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant should have been allowed under Pen. Code, § 1016.5, subd. (b), to withdraw his guilty plea to a drug offense, even though he had not shown that a trial probably would have a favorable outcome, because establishing prejudice required only proof that defendant would not have pled guilty if properly advised of immigration consequences.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
People v. Zurinaga, No. B184288, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument in referring to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, home invasion robbery defendants were not prejudiced because the evidence of defendants' guilt was overwhelming. It was not reasonably probable defendants would have achieved a more favorable result absent the misconduct.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.