 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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).
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
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. |
