|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - April 17, 2009
|
| |
Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano, A121817,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Parcels depicted on a subdivision map recorded in 1909 were not entitled to legal recognition under the Subdivision Map Act's grandfather clause, Gov. Code, ? 66499.30, subd. (d), because the law in effect at the time did not regulate the design, as defined in Gov. Code, ? 66418, and improvement, as defined in Gov. Code, ? 66419, of subdivisions.
|
|
| |
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, B204334,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: City ordinance providing that if a landlord demolished residential property subject to the city's rent control law, and built new residential rental units on the same property within five years, the new units were also subject to the rent control law, was not barred or preempted by the California Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
|
|
| |
Century 21 Chamberlain & Assocs. v. Haberman, G040202,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where defendant failed to meet her burden to show either of plaintiffs' causes of action for account stated and declaratory relief arose from activity protected by anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., ? 425.16, trial court correctly denied her anti-SLAPP motion; anti-SLAPP statute did not protect act of initiating private, contractual arbitration.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc., A119316,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff sued a building owner after he was injured in an elevator accident, the owner owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to maintain its elevator in a safe condition and, as a consequence, Proposition 51 did not apply to limit the owner's liability for noneconomic damages to several only.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback