|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - May 28, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, B201035,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Taxpayer's action challenging the validity of a local tax could not be maintained as a class action because Gov. Code, ? 910, did not expressly allow a class action claim; also, the substantial compliance rule did not apply because Cal. Const., art. XIII, ? 32, required tax refund actions to be brought in the manner prescribed by the Legislature.
|
|
| |
California Attorneys v. Schwarzenegger, C058415,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action complaining that lawyers in the Attorney General's office were under-compensated compared to other civil service job classifications, the court declined to order a parity pay formula because the aim of the merit principle under Cal. Const. art. VII, ? 1, subd. (b), was to prohibit a spoils system, not to equate merit with meritorious.
|
|
| |
Garcia v. Santana, B206513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In accordance with the right of access to the courts under U.S. Const., 1st Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, ? 3, a trial court had discretion to consider an indigent tenant's financial condition in determining the amount of fees to award against her pursuant to Civ. Code, ? 1354, subd. (c), but also was required to consider other relevant factors.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc., B205766,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Summary judgment against a creditor based on his failure to file the separate statement required by Code Civ. Proc., ? 437c, subd. (b)(3), was proper because the uncontroverted declarations of his debtor's mortgage lenders made a prima facie showing that the intent element of fraudulent transfer was lacking and that no duty of care was breached.
|
|
| |
Pelayo v. J. J. Lee Management Co., Inc., B208024,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Proof of service on a party initially named as a fictitious defendant in an employment discrimination case did not comply with Code Civ. Proc., ? 474, because it did not state the fictitious name or state that notice of that name had been given in the summons; thus, the clerk was deprived of the power to enter default under Code Civ. Proc., ? 585.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback