 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Air Couriers Internat. v. Employment Development Dept., C050978,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Package delivery drivers were employees as defined in Unemp. Ins. Code, § 621, subd. (b), because the company retained control over the delivery operation and because the drivers worked a regular schedule, often had regular routes, infrequently turned down jobs, had no independent business, and made no major investments in equipment or materials.
|
|||||
| Frank v. County of Los Angeles, B169427 and B172347,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to support special verdicts finding racial discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.; although a higher-paid classification consisted mainly of non-minority employees, no discriminatory barriers deterred minorities from applying, and racial animus was not shown.
|
|||||
| In re Brandy R., G037792,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court had authority to go forward with a mother's parental rights termination hearing under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, even though a remittitur had not issued from the mother's prior writ proceeding.
|
|||||
| In re Olson, B191958,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Orders that struck one year of an inmate's extended term and ordered California Board of Prison Terms to calculate inmate's parole release date under California Indeterminate Sentence Law guidelines were a nullity because trial court failed to comply with Pen. Code, § 1473 et seq., by granting inmate relief without issuing an order to show cause.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Vidal), S134901,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that defendant met statutory definition of mental retardation under Pen. Code, § 1376, because court did not commit legal error in giving less weight to defendant's Full Scale Intelligence Quotient on Wechsler IQ test scores and greater weight to other evidence of significantly impaired intellectual functioning.
|
|||||
| Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, S139917,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The use of a qualification-based selection (QBS) procedure by Caltrans for selecting architectural and engineering firms on public works projects was not inconsistent with Proposition 35 and was therefore not improper. Proposition 35 implicitly repealed preexisting statutes regulating private contracting for architectural and engineering services.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
