|
| |
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
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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).
|
|
| |
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 (d), to a party who withdrew a § 998 offer of settlement before it statutorily expired; the offer, because it was revoked before the expiration of the period statutorily specified by § 998, forfeited its status as an offer under the provisions of § 998.
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|