 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benson v. California Coastal Com., No. B186125,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which opponents of a developer's application for a coastal development permit appealed a county's approval of the permit pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, § 30625, the developer was not denied due process. Written notice of de novo hearing was adequate because the California Coastal Commission sent developer a copy of opponents' appeal.
|
|||||
| Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., D046279,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court rightly found defendants were prevailing parties under anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, because they successfully eliminated plaintiffs' trade libel cause of action. However, trial court erred in failing to reduce attorney fees awarded to defendants to reflect they were only partially successful on their anti-SLAPP motion.
|
|||||
| Preciado v. Wilde, No. B182257,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing title by adverse possession, where defendant testified she had no notice that plaintiffs wanted to interfere with her right to possession and title, plaintiffs never excluded defendant from property or restricted her access to it, and fences on property were not designed to exclude defendant.
|
|||||
| Richards v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, B183901,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bus. & Prof. Code, § 24071.1, did not provide for an automatic transfer of an alcoholic beverage license upon the sale of a tavern; a transfer could be effective only upon agency approval of an application, and because the buyer did not apply for a transfer or for an original license, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| We CareSanta Paula v. Herrera, No. B186242,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An initiative petition for a measure to amend the general plan of a city complied with Elec. Code, § 9201, where it contained the text of the proposed measure. The statute did not require that the initiative petition include the text of every plan, law, or ordinance the measure might affect.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Genentech, Inc., A110611,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's disability discrimination claim under Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a), failed because she was medically unable to work when her position was filled and there were no vacant positions for which she was qualified between the date when her physician released her to return to work and the date when she was terminated.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Hume, G035599,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Prob. Code, §§ 2610 & 2620, a conservator had a duty to include the conservatee's Tennessee real property in his final accounting. The trial judge erred in concluding that the conservator was under no legal obligation to include the Tennessee property in the final accounting.
|
|||||
| Deveny v. Entropin, Inc., E036597,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in applying the sham pleading doctrine in a securities fraud action under Corp. Code, § 25506, and 15 U.S.C. § 77m to find that the action was time-barred; there was evidence that data to which the original pleading might have referred was inconclusive, and its disclosure on a website did not put the investors on inquiry notice.
|
|||||
| Estate of Myers, G035355,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An estate's creditor had standing to seek recovery of profits from a sale of real property under Prob. Code, § 850, because the decedent, who purported to direct the disposition of the property in her will, claimed at least a beneficial interest in the property, even though title was held by a purchaser through an allegedly fraudulent transfer.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. City of Corona, E036270,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that method used by city to determine amount of building permit and inspection fees violated California Mitigation Fee Act because decrease in fees adopted by city was supported by substantial evidence; a long-term forecast, using an average, was neither inherently unreliable nor so arbitrary as to be mere speculation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
