California, April, 2008, State Case law

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!

State Courts - California - April 7, 2008

Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc., B182156, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, S130839, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Employer's failure to obtain a third medical opinion as contemplated by Gov. Code, ? 12945.2, subd. (k)(3)(C), did not estop it from asserting that an employee who requested medical leave because of major depression and work-related stress did not have a serious medical condition as defined in ? 12945.2, subd. (k)(1).

Search Cases for Free

Miller v. American Greetings Corp., B187173 & B191349, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: In a case in which plaintiff was hit by greeting card company's employee with his truck while she stood next to her car, trial court properly granted company's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff's evidence did not permit reasonable trier of fact to conclude accident happened while employee was talking on his cell phone with crew chief.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Pitto, S139609, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant was armed with a gun under Pen. Code, ? 12022, subd. (c), while committing drug offenses because he placed the gun next to the drugs in his vehicle; hence, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct that there had to be a facilitative nexus between the drug offense and the gun or that the weapon's presence might be coincidental.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Woods, A116399, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant who was convicted under Pen. Code, ? 32, as an accessory after the fact to murder was not required to pay victim restitution under Cal. Const., art. I, ? 28, subd. (b), and Pen. Code, ? 1202.4, subd. (a)(1), because defendant's criminal conduct did not cause the loss for which compensation was sought.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal