 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berardi v. Superior Court, D049444,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of indictment was required where it was reasonably probable that grand jury would not have found probable cause to indict had it been properly informed of exculpatory evidence under Pen. Code, § 939.71; defendant showed substantial prejudice, as State's disclosure deficiencies seriously interfered with grand jury's investigatory function.
|
|||||
| InfiNet Marketing Services, Inc. v. American Motorist Ins. Co., G036312, G036248,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an insurance broker because the broker was not a third party beneficiary of workers' compensation insurance contract between employee leasing company and client companies under Lab. Code, § 3602, subd. (d); broker was not of class of persons for whose benefit the policy was purchased.
|
|||||
| Parlour Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirin Group, Inc., G036525,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which franchisee and subfranchisees sued franchisor for breach of contract after franchisor terminated franchise agreements to develop ice cream parlor subfranchises, the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's award of lost profits to plaintiffs, where the expert opinion on which the award was based was speculative.
|
|||||
| People v. Cooper, A108723,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retrial of a murder charge was not barred, despite a finding in the context of harmful error analysis that without an erroneously admitted statement the evidence of murder was insufficient, because the insufficiency finding was not final for collateral estoppel purposes under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Law of the case doctrine also did not apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
