 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California, A116649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer could not invoke collateral estoppel to challenge a ruling that its drivers were employees rather than independent contractors, which increased its payroll tax liability and allegedly conflicted with prior determinations, before paying the taxes because Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 32, took precedence over the collateral estoppel doctrine.
|
|||||
| In re Bush, A119085,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled under Pen. Code, § 2900.5, to be discharged from his five-year parole period based on time he served in prison in excess of base term where he received credits for all the time he lawfully spent in prison custody pending the suitability determination in his case and was entitled to no further reduction of his parole period.
|
|||||
| Los Angeles County Dependency Attorneys, Inc. v. Department of General Services, A118375,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public contract awarded by the Administrative Office of the Courts did not first have to be submitted to the California Department of General Services for review and approval because that requirement was inapplicable to contracts awarded by that office, in accordance with Pub. Contract Code, §§ 10295, 10335, 10335.7.
|
|||||
| Palm Medical Group, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, A114651,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting an insurer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found that the insurer had excluded a medical provider from a preferred provider network in violation of the common law fair procedure doctrine; substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of duty, arbitrary action, and a right to damages.
|
|||||
| People v. Lee, F052081,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court, in denying defendant's motion to strike a prior robbery conviction pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1385, did not err in failing to consider evidence of defendant's background, character, and prospects, where defendant never presented such evidence and defendant never asked trial court to consider his background, character, or prospects.
|
|||||
| People v. Leon, D048304,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was insufficient evidence to support conviction for witness intimidation under Pen. Code, § 136, subd. (b)(1), on theory that defendant aided and abetted codefendant who fired gun in air after witness threatened to call police. There was no evidence of defendant's staring at witness, and intimidation was not consequence of target offenses.
|
|||||
| Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, D050433,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Excess coverage was not triggered when the insured settled a coverage dispute with its primary insurer for an amount less than the primary insurer's policy limit and released its primary insurer; the exhaustion clause provided for liability only after the primary insurer had paid, or had been held liable to pay, the full amount of the policy limit.
|
|||||
| Searles Valley Minerals Operations, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, D049905,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc., B196817,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right of fair procedure did not apply to private organizations' decisions about their own awards. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that organizations did not control his right to practice the trade or profession of movie producing, and that their negative response to his application for award credit did not significantly impair his ability to work.
|
|||||
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. |
