 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brewer v. Murphy, F051700,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action in which plaintiffs sought to acquire prescriptive rights to take water from defendants' land, substantial evidence supported finding that plaintiffs asserted a claim of right that was hostile and adverse to defendants' rights to the water and to defendants' exclusive use of the land over which a water line ran.
|
|||||
| Capitol Racing v. California Horse Racing Bd., C051744,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A harness racing operator's mandamus petition challenging the California Horse Racing Board's decision regarding a quarter horse racing operator's refusal to accept satellite telecasts of the harness racing operator's races was time-barred under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19463, where the petition was not filed within 30 days of the decision.
|
|||||
| Employers Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B200959,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Course of performance evidence was admissible in interpreting liability insurance policies pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1856, subd. (c), as interpreted in accordance with Cal. U. Com. Code, § 1303; such evidence consisted of the performance of insurers and their insured, not just the specific individuals who negotiated or executed the contracts.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., S139184,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action based on a manufacture's failure to warn an air conditioning technician about risks of exposure to a refrigerant, summary judgment was properly granted for the manufacturer because the sophisticated user defense applied in California and defeated technician's causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties.
|
|||||
| People v. Rundle, S012943,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 3, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An actual conflict of interest rendered defense counsels' performance on a claim of juror misconduct inadequate for Sixth Amendment purposes because cocounsel's questioning of a witness, who was a colleague of cocounsel's wife, was inadequate compared to what unconflicted counsel would have done. Defendant failed, however, to show prejudice.
|
|||||
| In re Vincent M., B198078,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that child's biological father was nonstatutory presumed father entitled to reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, without consideration of child's best interest was error; he did not fall within definition of presumed father under Fam. Code, § 7611, as he did not receive child into his home and hold him out as his own.
|
|||||
| People v. Correa, C054365,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Punishment of defendant convicted under Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1), of seven counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm was proper because imposition of a separate sentence for each of the weapons he unlawfully possessed, which were of different makes and calibers, did not violate Pen. Code, § 654, and was supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
| Prince v. Sutter Health Central, C052530,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) applied to an employee and barred plaintiffs from seeking further noneconomic damages because an unlicensed social worker, such as the employee, registered with appropriate agency and working toward licensure, was a health care provider rendering professional services under MICRA.
|
|||||
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. |
