 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., A106375,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which husband and wife sued personal watercraft maker after wife sustained serious orifice injuries when she fell off the rear of the craft, doctrine of primary assumption of risk did not bar plaintiffs' strict products liability claim. As a matter of law, defect escalated risk of harm beyond inherent risk of falling into the water.
|
|||||
| In re Freeman, S122590,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a full and fair evidentiary hearing in habeas corpus proceedings, an inmate failed to prove allegations that the prosecutor, in collusion with the trial judge, excused Jewish prospective jurors; other evidence contradicted the prosecutor's declaration, and the prosecutor had a grudge against the district attorney's office.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Burkle, B179751,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Presumption of undue influence under Fam. Code, § 721, did not apply to postmarital agreement because both spouses obtained advantages; both were represented by competent legal counsel; wife was offered full access to husband's marital asset business records; and both acknowledged in agreement that neither obtained unfair advantage from agreement.
|
|||||
| Mahon v. County of San Mateo, A110171,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of an applicant's request for a judicial declaration that his development permit applications were deemed approved was proper because his applications were not deemed approved due to the lack of warning in the public notices of the potential for deemed approval, as required by Gov. Code, § 65956, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| People v. Walker, B180004,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial, it was error to admit evidence of defendant's prior criminal conduct of raping and assaulting other women to prove his propensity to kill the victim, a prostitute, because defendant was not accused of a sexual offense within meaning of Evid. Code, § 1108; however, defendant's conviction was upheld because the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, S131818,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City of San Francisco did not have to arbitrate with a firefighters' union before requiring the use of statistically valid grouping for certification of candidates for promotion. The new rule was reasonably related to ensuring compliance with antidiscrimination laws and thus was exempt from arbitration under S.F. Charter, § A8.590-5(g)(3).
|
|||||
| Totten v. Board of Supervisors, B182733,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In enacting Gov. Code, §§ 29000- 29093, legislature intended that authority to adopt budgets for county public safety agencies be exercised specifically and exclusively by board of supervisors. Therefore, two sections of initiative ordinance, prescribing minimum future annual budgets for county public safety agencies, were constitutionally invalid.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
