 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. City of Pomona, S149499,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a fatal shooting by police of an unarmed suspect, the surviving family was collaterally estopped by a federal judgment on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim from pursuing a state wrongful death claim, based either on failure to exercise reasonable care in using deadly force or on officers' allegedly negligent preshooting conduct.
|
|||||
| In re S.B., S162156,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother should have been permitted to appeal from a finding that her children were probably adoptable and an order that efforts be made to locate an appropriate adoptive family. Resolving a division among the courts of appeal, the court held that orders under § 366.26, subd. (c)(3), were appealable under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.
|
|||||
| In re S.R., C060404,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Samuel G., D054066,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court properly ordered a social services agency to pay for the travel of a child's court-appointed child advocate (CASA), who was also the child's educational representative, to visit the child at his out-of-county placement. The order was to pay for the travel expenses of the CASA in her role as the child's educational representative.
|
|||||
| 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
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
