 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fairfax v. Lords, G034533,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action, the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing a podiatrist to delay his designation of retained expert witnesses until 20 days after the patient had designated his own expert, instead of enforcing a simultaneous exchange of information as required by former Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.
|
|||||
| In re Marcus, H028866,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a mother was found guilty of contempt for interfering with a court-ordered visit between her daughter and the daughter's father, there was no order upon which to hold the mother in contempt because there was no written order of which the mother had notice.
|
|||||
| Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, H028699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants lacked standing to oppose discovery order because they were not parties in underlying action for which discovery was sought, but instead were themselves the third parties in lawsuit that might have nothing to do with them; they were not entitled to resist discovery by invoking First Amendment rights of presumably unrelated third parties.
|
|||||
| McVeigh v. Doe 1, B181275,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A child sexual abuse action was not time barred, even though the attorney's certificate justifying a late filing of the substantive certificates of merit was not filed within the statute of limitations and with the complaint, because Code Civ. Proc, § 340.1, subd. (h), permitted the justifying certificate to be filed with the other certificates.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. Nelson, No. B179275,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action, trial court erred in refusing to instruct jury that a violation of Pen. Code, § 385, which made it a misdemeanor for any person to move any tool or equipment within six feet of a high voltage line, was negligence per se. There was a reasonable probability that had jury been so instructed, it could have found causation.
|
|||||
| Smock v. State of California, A107532, A108413,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action brought by a lawyer against the State after the lawyer was seriously injured in a traffic accident, trial court properly applied collateral source rule to exclude from the jury's consideration certain payments the lawyer, who had recently become a partner at a law firm, received from the firm during his convalescence.
|
|||||
| V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., B184022,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tort action against a school district, which arose from sexual molestation of a minor student by a teacher who was arrested more than one year before the student presented her claim for damages, was barred because the student did not timely comply with the claims filing requirement of Gov. Code, § 945.4.
|
|||||
| Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz, H028864,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of legislation adopted by a city providing a credit for private open space pursuant to Gov. Code, § 66477, the city had no ministerial duty to provide a subdivision developer with a specific amount of credit for private open space, and the developer had no right to performance of such a duty.
|
|||||
| People v. Carlos, B178957, B184737,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a robbery case, a photo array was impermissibly suggestive because defendant's name and an identification number were printed on the front of the form, directly below his picture, and nothing was printed underneath the other photos; moreover, the error was prejudicial because the witnesses could not identify defendant at trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
