 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, E038354,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted insurers' demurrer where insured's claim was nothing more than a claim for breach of contract disguised as an action for rescission because insured could not recover damages under her policies in an action for rescission under Civ. Code, § 1692, and her claim was barred under the contractual one-year limitations period.
|
|||||
| In re Ali A., C049808,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although juvenile court lacked discretion to set a maximum term of physical confinement when it committed a minor to custody of his parents subject to probationary supervision, rather than to state youth authority's custody, because Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c), did not apply, reversal was not required because minor was not prejudiced.
|
|||||
| Lazan v. County of Riverside, E038572,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where substantial evidence supported the finding that a county, by its words and actions, demonstrated that it believed that a county employee was incapable of performing her job duties as a deputy sheriff, the county was required to apply for disability retirement on the employee's behalf pursuant to Gov. Code, § 21153.
|
|||||
| People v. Ranger Ins. Co., G035387,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although surety stated that the form of an undertaking should have been based on Pen. Code, § 1552.1, which authorized bail for fugitives, there was no special form dictated by statute for a bond in fugitive proceedings. Under Pen. Code, § 1553, recovery on bond issued for fugitive was to be had on same grounds as bonds in all other proceedings.
|
|||||
| Slintak v. Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd., B182875,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that the power of sale in a trust deed had expired under the 10-year limitations period; the filing of a lis pendens within the time limits extended the period under Civ. Code, § 880.260, and because less than 10 years had elapsed from the filing of the lis pendens, the power of sale in the trust deed had not expired.
|
|||||
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. |
