 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andersen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B191064,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's policy of requiring industrially injured employees to use earned vacation time rather than sick leave to attend medical appointments, while allowing workers with nonindustrial injuries or illnesses to use their sick leave for medical appointments, constituted illegal discrimination in contravention of Lab. Code, § 132a.
|
|||||
| Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., C050715,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute about whether a contractor was entitled to reimbursement under Pub. Contract Code, § 7104, for increased costs resulting from materially differing subsurface conditions, the trial court properly granted motions in limine excluding general disclaimers from jury consideration on the ground that they were in conflict with § 7104.
|
|||||
| People v. Chavez, B190270,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, the trial court erred in failing to impose a drug laboratory fee pursuant to Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a), because imposition of the fee was mandatory. The laboratory fee was an increment of the total fines imposed by the trial court.
|
|||||
| Rossco Holdings, Inc. v. Bank of America, B189963,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a judge had discussed prospective employment as a dispute resolution neutral, he was disqualified under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(8), from ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, and his order granting the motion was void; however, it was premature to vacate the award without determining if the proceedings had been tainted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
