 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, B197692,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wage and hour action, a redacted letter from the employer's outside counsel was not a confidential communication protected from disclosure under Evid. Code, § 952, by the attorney-client privilege and was not protected by the work product doctrine in Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, because the visible portions contained only job descriptions.
|
|||||
| Duffens v. Valenti, D050450,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because dating service agreements contained language that was directly contrary to the language specified in Civ. Code, § 1694.3, they were void and unenforceable pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1694.4, and the providers could not compel arbitration under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, of claims of fraud and statutory violations asserted by clients.
|
|||||
| Estate of McDaniel, C054314,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly decided that an intestate decedent's former wife was not entitled to inherit from his estate because, having been a party to a valid dissolution proceeding concluded by an order terminating all marital property rights, she was not decedent's surviving spouse within meaning of Prob. Code, § 78, subd. (d), at time of his death.
|
|||||
| Estate of Pierre P. Claeyssens, No. B197307,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's imposition of a graduated probate court filing fee pursuant to Gov. Code, §§ 26827 and 68087, was improper because, to the extent that §§ 26827 and 68087 authorized the fee, they were enacted in violation of Rev. & Tax. Code, § 13301, and Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c), and were of no force or effect.
|
|||||
| Ferraro v. Camarlinghi, H030890,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred under Code Civ. Proc., § 436, in striking appellant's complaint on grounds it was precluded by prior judgments or orders, statute of limitations, or compulsory cross-complaint rule where none of the orders cited as bars to the action was shown to possess characteristics necessary to give them preclusive effect against appellant.
|
|||||
| O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Manufacturing, Inc., B195641,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A consumer lacked standing as a private person to prosecute a case alleging violations of UCL and California False Advertising Law where he did not see any country of origin representation with respect to a license plate frame before he purchased it; thus, any injury in fact he might have suffered was not as a result of an unfair business practice.
|
|||||
| Patterson Flying Service v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, F052102,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported hearing officer's conclusion that flying service violated Food & Agr. Code, § 12973, by applying pesticides in conflict with their labeling. The labeling prohibited use in a way that would contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Application of pesticides created actual health hazard.
|
|||||
| People v. French, S148845,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the aggravating circumstance upon which the trial court relied in imposing an upper term sentence was neither admitted by way of defendant's no contest plea nor established by a jury verdict, defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated by the upper term sentence on a count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
|
|||||
| People v. Garcia, B196863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who was relieved of mandatory sex offender registration requirement on equal protection grounds was entitled to a new Hofsheier hearing on discretionary lifetime sex offender registration under Pen. Code, § 290.006, because circumstances subsequent to the conviction, including good behavior and rehabilitation, should have been considered.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilson, S070327,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in failing to give a lesser included offense instruction on second-degree murder where the evidence permitted no conclusion other than that the killing was committed during the course of a robbery, which made the crime first-degree felony murder, pursuant to Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 211, 190.2, subd. (a)(17).
|
|||||
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. |
