|
|
| |
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 - May 7 - May 11, 2009
|
| |
Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., B202997,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Taxpayer's complaint alleging that it had complied with all requirements for earning a tax credit for employing disadvantaged workers in an enterprise zone pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code, ? 23622.7, and that the California Franchise Tax Board had denied its request for a refund was sufficient to state a cause of action for a tax refund.
|
|
| |
Doe v. California Department of Justice, D053176,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although plaintiffs argued that California Department of Justice was equitably estopped from rescinding their exclusions from disclosure on its Megan's Law Web site because they detrimentally relied on exclusions they received in 2005 before Pen. Code, ? 290.46, was retroactively changed in 2006, their equitable estoppel argument was meritless.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re E.S., D052768,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Father's constitutional challenges to Fam. Code, ? 3041, were rejected, as statute's standards and criteria represented appropriate balancing of the competing interests involved in nonparental custody cases; in cases involving nonparental custody, ? 3041's detriment to child requirement was imposed in addition to best interest of child requirement.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California, B205892,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case in which a hospital sued an insurer of a group health plan after the insurer refused to reimburse the hospital for the cost of emergency care provided to a patient, Health & Saf. Code, ? 1371.4, was not subject to ordinary preemption under ERISA because ? 1371.4 fell under the purview of ERISA's saving clause.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback