 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC, D052743,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When considered in context of entire news telecast, a caption plaintiffs claimed falsely suggested that law enforcement was conducting a search for them was not reasonably susceptible to that meaning; thus, plaintiffs failed to establish a probability of prevailing on their defamation claim, and defendant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.
|
|||||
| Elkman v. National States Ins. Co., B205919,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonresident insurer's motion to quash service of summons and complaint was properly granted under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 410.10, as insurer did not subject itself to jurisdiction in California merely by accepting premium payments from the state and by processing and paying claims submitted by its California insureds for services rendered in the state.
|
|||||
| People v. Chaffin, E046217,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child endangerment case, the failure to give a jury instruction on the legal definition of "likely" in Pen. Code, ¿ 273a could not have been prejudicial to defendant, and was therefore harmless, since the factual question posed by the omitted definition was resolved adversely to defendant in another, properly given, instruction.
|
|||||
| People v. Chaffin, E046217,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District, S159319,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 14, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owned by a regional park and open space district was not actually dedicated for park purposes, within the meaning of Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 5540, immediately upon its acquisition by operation of Pub. Resources Code, ¿ 5565, when the district took title to it; absent a formal resolution of dedication, the district could sell the property.
|
|||||
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. |
