 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. v. City of Union City, A114956,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee imposed by a city on telephone lines to fund its 911 emergency communication system was a special tax, and thus subject to Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 2, because fee did not fit into category of a special assessment, a development fee, a regulatory fee, or a user fee; there was no discrete group that was specially benefitted by the imposition.
|
|||||
| Everett v. State Farm General Ins. Co., E041807,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner's policy expressly provided that insurer would pay the reasonable cost to replace damaged property up to the stated policy limits. Because insurer did just that, insured's assertion that insurer failed to pay to replace her home did not support a claim for breach of contract.
|
|||||
| Kaplan v. Mamelak, B191118,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice claim, a patient should have been permitted to conduct discovery as to whether a surgeon was outside of California anytime during the statute of limitations period because, contrary to the trial court's ruling, the out-of-state tolling provision in Code Civ. Proc., § 351, applied to medical malpractice claims.
|
|||||
| Roman v. Liberty University, Inc., E042838,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case brought against university, trial court properly granted university's motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction because the university did not purposely avail itself of the benefits of doing business in California such that it could expect to be subject to jurisdiction in that state.
|
|||||
| Tan v. Arnel Management Co., B197706,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner had a duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties, given that the tenants asked for relatively minimal security measures, because three prior incidents of assault were sufficiently similar to make an attempted carjacking and shooting foreseeable, even though the prior incidents did not involve shooting or carjacking.
|
|||||
| Wang v. Valverde, B197743,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 29, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An argument by the California Department of Motor Vehicles that, as a matter of law, it had the authority to revoke plaintiff's class C driver's license because it allegedly caught plaintiff cheating on an examination for a class B license failed because it depended upon an incorrect interpretation of Veh. Code, § 13359.
|
|||||
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. |
