 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., F053350,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State employee who remained totally temporarily disabled after receiving one year of industrial disability leave (IDL) indemnity and a subsequent year of temporary disability (TD) payments was limited under Lab. Code, § 4656, subd. (c)(1), to only two years of combined IDL and TD indemnity; she could not receive a year of IDL and two years of TD.
|
|||||
| Harvey v. Sybase, Inc., A109300, A111450,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a discrimination case under Gov. Code, § 12940, an employer was not entitled to JNOV on liability, even though the case contained strong same-actor evidence, because there was also substantial evidence that the supervisor who hired, promoted, and terminated the employee had formed the intent to make race- and gender-based personnel decisions.
|
|||||
| People v. Gemelli, E043682,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where probation officer's report and commercial burglary victim's attached statement of losses were not only credible but substantial, trial court did not err in amount of restitution it ordered defendant to pay to victim pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f). Victim's list explained how each of the claimed losses was related to the burglary.
|
|||||
| People v. Medrano, C056068,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An upper term sentence for burglary based on defendant's probation status, which was reimposed following defendant's discharge from the California Rehabilitation Center and conviction for a new offense, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment jury trial right because a prior conviction and related facts could be judicially found at sentencing.
|
|||||
| Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A114334, A115395, A115571,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objector to a settlement with an on-line movie rental service of a class action lawsuit failed to overcome the presumption that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. Objector failed to explain why the settlement terms were not fair and reasonable in relation to the range of possible results further litigation might have produced.
|
|||||
| People v. Garcia, B194011,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because assault with a deadly weapon or with a firearm was inherently dangerous, trial court properly concluded that evidence would not support defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter under Pen. Code, § 192, and, therefore, did not err in declining to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder.
|
|||||
| People v. Zamudio, S074414,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case, the Fourth Amendment did not require suppression of evidence because defendant's consent to an examination of his shoes was not rendered involuntary, given that he was not detained. He went with relatives to the police station as a witness, waited in a nonsecure area between interviews, and was not threatened or accused.
|
|||||
| SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert , B192342,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mobilehome park owner's refusal to lease undeveloped spaces to a dealer did not violate the Cartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq., because prospective tenants were not forced to buy their mobilehomes from specific dealers; thus, there was no tying arrangement under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720.
|
|||||
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. |
