 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bravo v. Superior Court, No. B195593,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A peremptory challenge to the trial judge under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, in an employment discrimination case was timely because the case was not a continuation of a previous action; although a previous case had involved the same employee and the same employer, the second action arose out of later events distinct from those in the previous action.
|
|||||
| City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett, H029631,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Monte Sereno Mun. Code, § 6.17.170, which provided for recovery of attorney fees by the city if it prevailed in a nuisance action, conflicted with the requirement of Gov. Code, § 38773.5, subd. (b), that ordinances allowing attorney fees in nuisance actions provide for recovery by the prevailing party, a fee award had to be reversed.
|
|||||
| City of Watsonville v. Corrigan, H030054,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a city did not tender its defense when it sought contractual indemnity in a negligence lawsuit, tender was not a prerequisite for reimbursement; the indemnity agreements were silent with respect to the costs of defense, and under Civ. Code, § 2778, indemnity included reasonable costs of defense unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
|
|||||
| Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., G036522,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent a statement of decision, the doctrine of implied findings required an inference that a trial court made factual findings necessary to determine that a manufacturer reasonably withheld consent to transfer an auto dealership under Veh. Code, § 11713.3, subd. (e), and substantial evidence of the dealers' dishonesty supported that ruling.
|
|||||
| In re Charlisse C., B194568,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a juvenile dependency proceeding, a nonprofit law center should not have been disqualified from representing the child, even though the center had previously represented the mother in a different matter, because there was no specific conflict raised and the center had formal mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of confidential information.
|
|||||
| In re Helen W., G037374,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a termination of parental rights case, a finding of adoptability was not obviated, under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A), by the benefit that children derived from relationship with mother because they had spent most of their lives with the prospective adoptive parent and had no needs that could be filled only by their mother.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Reisig v. Broderick Boys, C051707,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injunction against street gang could not stand because State failed to show that gang was an unincorporated association for purpose of service under Corp. Code, §§ 18035, subd. (a), 18220; State also did not take steps reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of pendency of action and afford them opportunity to present their objections.
|
|||||
| Seastrom v. Neways, Inc. , D048181,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a lawsuit brought by distributors of a product that contained human growth hormone against product's manufacturer, trial court properly denied distributors' motion for class certification. Given that distributors were themselves potential defendants in the proposed class action, they had an insurmountable conflict with the class.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
