 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., B179537, B181354,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The provision in Civ. Code, § 2527, that required drug claims processors to transmit a study of pharmacy fees to third party payors violated the free speech provision of Cal. Const., art. I, § 2. The trial court properly granted the processors' special motion to strike and awarded them attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.
|
|||||
| Estate of Rossi, C049330,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Prob. Code, § 21305, subd. (a)(3), an amendment that was separate from a trust instrument containing a no contest clause, executed after January 1, 2001, was subject to challenge without violating the no contest clause because the language of the instrument's no contest clause failed to expressly identify the action as a violation.
|
|||||
| Gil v. Bank of America, N.A., B181249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of whether an indorsement on a check was forged, unauthorized, or missing, plaintiffs' remedy against a bank lay only in a conversion action under Cal. U. Com. Code, § 3420, which superseded plaintiffs' negligence claim. Thus, the bank's demurrer to plaintiffs' negligence cause of action was properly sustained.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Walker, A109284,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court refused to apply amended Fam. Code, §§ 721, subd. (b), & 1100, subd. (e), retroactively to penalize a wife for not disclosing to her husband the depletion of funds in an IRA. There was no evidence that the wife used the IRA funds only to her advantage and patently to the husband's disadvantage.
|
|||||
| McQuarters v. Superior Court, A112669,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A recommitment petition for a mentally disordered offender (MDO) should have been dismissed because it was filed 13 days after the MDO's previous term expired and thus failed to comply with a mandatory filing requirement of Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (e). The People conceded that there was no good cause to excuse the tardy filing.
|
|||||
| Olinick v. BMG Entertainment, B179478,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses in an employment contract, calling for the application of New York law, were enforceable in an age discrimination case filed in California because the New York City Human Rights Law provided an adequate remedy, including compensatory, punitive, and emotional distress damages and the right to trial by jury.
|
|||||
| Pacific Shore Funding v. Lozo, B178694,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that rescission was unavailable to borrowers, although it properly applied statute of limitations to bar their claim for damages, because borrowers were not precluded from rescinding a consumer credit transaction that was secured by their residence and subject to TILA merely because they had already refinanced that loan.
|
|||||
| People v. Mojica, B176369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to instruct jury that it had to find existence of tax deficiency as element of felony income tax evasion, Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706, was not harmless error; if defendant had known ahead of time about tax deficiency requirement and its concomitant defense, he might have put on stronger case as to proof of claimed deductions and expenses.
|
|||||
| People v. Pilster, G035130,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an assault case, because the prosecution used defendant's custodial statements for impeachment purposes, defendant was entitled to CALJIC No. 2.13.1, which informed the jury it could consider his statements only on the issue of his credibility. Any error in failing to give the instruction, however, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
