 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguilera v. Heiman, B206790,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The one-year statute of limitation in Code Civ. Proc., former ¿ 340, subd. (3), applied to a personal injury action by an injured worker, which arose from an incident that occurred on November 5, 1997, because the two-year statute of limitations in new Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 335.1, which took effect on January 1, 2003, did not apply retroactively.
|
|||||
| Bi-Coastal Payroll Services, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., B205969,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of appeal was timely under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a), because a minute order that was not entitled "Notice of Entry" did not strictly comply with the requirements of rule 8.104(a)(1), although "Notice of Entry" language appeared on the first page, and therefore did not commence the 60-day time period for filing the notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| Dennis v. Southard, C058948,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical battery case, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury pursuant to CACI No. 530B regarding conditional consent with its explicit intent and knowledge requirement. Inclusion of intent and knowledge as elements of medical battery was consistent with well-established principles of civil battery.
|
|||||
| In re Branden O., A123065,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no dispute that defendant minor assaulted his victim with a device that emitted an electrical charge, and a police officer testified that the device was capable of temporarily immobilizing a person. This was sufficient evidence to show that defendant assaulted the victim with a stun gun, as defined by Pen. Code, ¿ 244.5, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| People v. $ 10,153.38 United States Currency, B205875,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The People's failure to try a forfeiture action in conjunction with the criminal case, as required by Health & Saf. Code, ¿ 11488.4, subd. (i)(3), or to obtain a waiver of the right to jury trial, precluded entry of judgment in favor of the People.
|
|||||
| People v. McLernon, B209952,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in failing to consider the merits of a motion to expunge a conviction under the interests of justice provision of Pen. Code, ¿ 1203.4, subd. (a), after two previous petitions had been denied based on failure to successfully complete probation; res judicata did not bar the motion, and post-probation conduct could be considered.
|
|||||
| Sacramento County v. Sandison, C058396,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contempt proceeding initiated by a county to enforce an injunction to abate a nuisance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendants were prevailing parties and awarding attorney fees to them pursuant to a contract. There was no other active proceeding pending in which the same contract claims were already in issue.
|
|||||
| Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, B204902,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of employer's petition to dismiss a former employee's administrative wage claim for unpaid vacation pay and to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties' arbitration agreement was error because employee waived his right to Berman proceeding under Lab. Code, ¿ 98 et seq., and enforcement of that waiver was not barred by public policy.
|
|||||
| Valentine Capital Asset Management v. Agahi, A121827,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employees of an investment advisor did not have a contractual right to arbitration under the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) because their trade secrets dispute did not involve activities related to FINRA members, although they and the investment advisor were associated with other firms that were FINRA members.
|
|||||
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. |
