 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Prindle, C055832,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Administrator's failure to assert the lack of a timely probate claim while a negligence action was pending waived the issue, and an insurer that refused a defense was likewise estopped in accordance with Civ. Code, ¿ 2778, subd. 5; the damages limit in Prob. Code, ¿ 554, subd. (a), did not apply because suit was brought against the administrator.
|
|||||
| Fairbanks v. Superior Court, S157001,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiffs brought a class action against an insurer, alleging, inter alia, that the insurer violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the life insurance policies issued by the insurer were not services as defined in the CLRA.
|
|||||
| People v. Ary, A113020,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a retrospective competency hearing conducted after a Pate violation, defendant was not required to prove that he was incompetent to stand trial because the presumption of competency created by the Pen. Code, ¿ 1369, subd. (f), did not apply. Instead, it was the prosecution's burden to prove that defendant was competent.
|
|||||
| People v. Branner, C059288,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers had valid basis to detain defendant in parking lot for traffic violations, where they observed that the rear license plate on defendant's vehicle was not illuminated and a headlight was out of alignment. Officers could have reasonably suspected that at least one of the lighting malfunctions occurred while vehicle was on the road.
|
|||||
| Vargas v. City of Salinas, S140911,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiff proponents of a ballot measure challenged the validity of a number of actions taken by city regarding the measure, all of the challenged activities constituted permissible informational activities. Therefore, the trial court properly granted city's special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 425.16.
|
|||||
| People v. Fairmont Specialty Group, B204778,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 21, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Surety's motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate bail should have been granted where defendant was under "arrest" or on "hold" within meaning Pen. Code, ¿ 1305, subd. (h); arresting officer learned of outstanding warrant and officials within proper jurisdiction were immediately informed that defendant was in custody and available for transfer.
|
|||||
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. |
