 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fries v. Rite Aid Corp., A120488,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, there was no legal requirement for defendants to file a proposed judgment prior to an award of prejudgment costs pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.
|
|||||
| Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, B195740,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Equitable estoppel could not be applied to require arbitration of investors' claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against an accounting firm and a law firm, which were nonsignatories to operating agreements containing arbitration clauses, because the claims were not dependent on or inextricably bound up with obligations under the agreement.
|
|||||
| Munoz v. City of Union City, A120987,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a third appeal in a case arising from a woman's death in an incident with a police officer, trial court properly awarded postjudgment interest to respondents from date of the original judgment because although disposition in the second appeal said the judgment was reversed, its effect was to modify upwards the original judgment against officer.
|
|||||
| Teselle v. McLoughlin, C054919,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Late filing of opposition statement did not violate policies of Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 437c, subd. (b)(2) or (b)(3), and because movants' separate statement did not address a material fact in the complaint, it did not assert a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment and did not shift burden to nonmovant to file opposing separate statement.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Hopkins, F055130,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father's sole income was from Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits, he was exempt under Fam. Code, ¿ 17450, subd. (c)(2), from a levy on his assets to satisfy child support arrears, based on his proof that he was receiving SSDI benefits at the time his child support delinquency was referred for collection.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Superior Court, G040679,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On a petition under Pen. Code, ¿ 2970, to extend a mentally disordered offender commitment, defendant could not argue that there was insufficient proof of a static foundational elementuse of force or violence in the underlying crimebecause he forfeited the issue by failing to file a petition prior to the expiration of the initial commitment.
|
|||||
| People v. Coon, D052722,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since documents faxed from a court in another county were admissible under the secondary evidence rule, Evid. Code, ¿ 1521, and there was sufficient evidence to authenticate them, the trial court did not err in admitting them into evidence on allegations defendant committed certain crimes while on bail.
|
|||||
| People v. Hawthorne, S064769,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his videotaped confession to police where, based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, defendant's willingness to answer questions after expressly affirming his understanding of his Miranda rights constituted a valid implied waiver of them.
|
|||||
| People v. Stone, S162675,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of one count of attempted murder of a named victim, the trial court erred in giving a modified version of a kill zone instruction. There was no evidence that defendant used a means to kill a named victim that inevitably would result in the death of other victims within a zone of danger.
|
|||||
| Silverbrand v. Los Angeles County, S143929,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prison inmate's notice of appeal in a medical malpractice lawsuit was timely under the prison-delivery rule because it was delivered to prison authorities in the manner prescribed for transmitting legal mail and before expiration of the 60-day jurisdictional period provided in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(2), for a civil appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
