 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., B198440,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in vacating arbitrators' award under Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(6), where neutral arbitrator had no duty to disclose any transaction of his employer in which he had no financial interest, and no duty to seek out information about business transactions/political contributions unknown to him when his disclosures were made.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Dockstader v. Hamby, G038349,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed qui tam plaintiffs' suit against school district employees seeking to recover funds on behalf of State under California False Claims Act, Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq., as employees of a public agency, acting in course and scope of their employment, and solely on agency's behalf, were not proper defendants under the Act.
|
|||||
| American Board of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. v. Medical Board of California, C054718,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cosmetic surgery organization's application to be recognized as a specialty board was properly denied under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 1363.5, subd. (b)(8), because there was sufficient information to support a determination that the organization's certification requirements were not equivalent to those of a recognized or approved specialty board.
|
|||||
| Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith, F050590,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a terminated agreement for sale of health clinics, there was a potential legal basis to enjoin the acquiring hospital and require return of materials containing confidential information because Civ. Code, § 3426.2, subd. (c), allowed a court to compel affirmative acts to protect trade secrets in appropriate circumstances.
|
|||||
| Consolidated Management Group, LLC v. Department of Corp., A117513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding pursuant to Corp. Code, § 25110, that joint venture interests were securities was proper because investments were being solicited from people who lacked knowledge to effectively exercise managerial powers conferred by joint venture agreements, and venturers were essentially dependent on some unique managerial ability of managing venturer.
|
|||||
| Great West Contractor, Inc. v. WSS Industrial Construction, Inc., B191662,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Lewis, S031603,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported findings that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against some minority prospective jurors in a capital trial for legitimate race-neutral reasons, including the excused jurors' views on the death penalty. No reversible error resulted from the admission of redacted statements of defendant and a codefendant.
|
|||||
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. |
