 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Applera Corp. v. MP Biomedicals, LLC, G038984,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly accepted jurisdiction over an action for breach of a patent licensing agreement because the federal courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); although patent law issues conceivably could have arisen under the complaint as pleaded, relief did not necessarily depend on their resolution.
|
|||||
| Bontempo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B207660,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that an employer had not offered work in over a year and was paying the workers' compensation benefit amount prescribed by Lab. Code, § 4658, subd. (d)(2), sufficed to raise the issue of the provision's applicability, as did checking the boxes labeled "permanent disability" and "apportionment" in the pretrial conference statement form.
|
|||||
| In re Nunez, G040377,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a kidnapping for ransom case, a sentence of life without parole for a 14-year-old offender who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder was reversed because Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a), violated Cal. Const. art. I, § 17, to the extent it purported to punish a juvenile kidnapper under age 16 more severely than if he had murdered the victim.
|
|||||
| In re T.C., C058834,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court did not err in ordering defendant juvenile to pay restitution on a dismissed count, as a condition of probation pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, even though defendant had not entered a Harvey waiver. The restitution order was reasonably related to future criminality.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles & Ventura Counties, B198888,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for employer on former employee's FEHA claims was improper because although employer presented legitimate reason for firing employee by asserting employee falsified time records, employee, in turn, denied that she submitted false records and presented a prima facie case that she was fired for an impermissible reason, her pregnancy.
|
|||||
| Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, B204688,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which an inventor sued a law firm after the firm requested reexamination of two of the inventor's patents, the inventor's complaints arose under federal law and were therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
|
|||||
| People v. Gaines, S157008,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Supreme Court concluded that trial court's erroneous denial of a Pitchess motion was not reversible per se. Rather, the failure to disclose relevant information in confidential personnel files, like other discovery errors, was reversible only if there was a reasonable probability of a different result had the information been disclosed.
|
|||||
| People v. Lawrence, S160736,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denying defendant's midtrial request to revoke Faretta waiver did not violate Sixth Amendment because granting it would have required a lengthy continuance, resulting in significant inconvenience to jurors and significant disruption to codefendant's case. Defendant's reasonthat his wife thought he should get an attorneywas not definite or urgent.
|
|||||
| Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Superior Court, B213044,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly exercised its discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 382, when, after weighing potential abuses against the parties' rights in an unfair competition case, it granted a class representative's motion for precertification discovery to find a new class representative who met the requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17203, 17204.
|
|||||
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. |
