 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Teachers Assn. v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., A110721,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence provisionally credentialed teachers fell within the narrow categories of temporary employment defined in the California Education Code, they fell within default classification of probationary in Ed. Code, § 44915, and thus were entitled to certain protections in event of layoff under Ed. Code, §§ 44949, 44955, 44957.
|
|||||
| Chevron Stations, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., C052807,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspension of a business's license to sell beer and wine was error because business made a prima facie case of state APA, Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq., violation, i.e., that it was standard California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control procedure for Department's prosecutor to furnish a report of hearing ex parte to Department's decision maker.
|
|||||
| Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda, A114941,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly applied the substantial evidence standard of Pub. Resources Code, § 21166, in upholding a city's findings that no substantial changes warranted subsequent environmental analysis after a mitigated negative declaration was adopted; the fair argument standard did not apply because the time to challenge the project had expired.
|
|||||
| Estate of Drummond, H029903,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Obtaining dismissal of a petition as barred by the compulsory cross-complaint rule was not a final judgment and determined nothing except that the contract claim had to be pursued as a cross-action in a previously filed case; hence, denial of a Civ. Code, § 1717, fee award was proper because neither party had yet prevailed on the contract.
|
|||||
| In re Mark B., C049885, C050371,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court referee had authority to sanction an attorney pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, for filing a frivolous conflict motion in juvenile court during dependency proceedings; such authority was incidentally necessary to the performance of the juvenile court's functions.
|
|||||
| Lezama-Carino v. Miller, H030068,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father who sought to appeal a child custody order presented the notice of appeal to the trial court for filing on the date the notice was due, the notice of appeal had to be deemed timely filed under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(1), although the trial court clerk did not actually file the notice of appeal on that date.
|
|||||
| Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept., B189575,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fire department's refusal to assign employee to platoon duty because of loss of his leg and limiting him to special duty assignments did not constitute adverse employment action under FEHA, as he continued to receive promotions after injury, had equal opportunities for promotion, and there was no evidence he suffered from hostile work environment.
|
|||||
| Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority, G035809,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly dismissed as untimely plaintiff's causes of action against two public entity defendants, where the combined period of time from accrual of plaintiff's causes of action to the filing of suit, 25 months and 11 days, exceeded the two-year statute of limitations imposed by Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(2).
|
|||||
| People v. Baughman, C050147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for incest, the trial court adequately informed the jury of the requirement of unanimity where it instructed the jury that, in order to convict defendant, it had to unanimously agree that defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim.
|
|||||
| People v. Lowe, S131879,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not establish prejudice from a delay in being notified of charges against him simply by showing that he lost the chance to serve any sentence stemming from the charges concurrently with a sentence he was serving for a probation violation, where there was no evidence the delay impaired his ability to defend against the charges.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
