 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, S149178,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bank's practice of recouping overdrafts and charging insufficient funds fees to recipients of public benefits did not run afoul of case law prohibiting setoffs against public benefit funds because the bank was not setting off independent past debt; Fin. Code, § 864, subd. (a)(2), expressly excepted overdrafts and bank fees from setoff limitations.
|
|||||
| People v. Davis, S056425,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 1, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case, the trial court properly refused to suppress statements defendant made to police investigator in which he confessed to the murder. Statements were admissible under the rescue doctrine. It was objectively reasonable for investigator to believe that defendant might have information that could lead to victim's rescue.
|
|||||
| Chau v. Starbucks Corp., D053491,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer did not violate the prohibition in Lab. Code, § 351, against an employer or its agent taking any portion of an employee's tip by permitting shift supervisors, who directly served customers and spent most of their time performing the same service tasks as entry-level employees, to share in tips that customers placed in a collective tip box.
|
|||||
| Farb v. Superior Court, No. B209814,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2's one-year statute of limitations barred breach of contract suit against decedent's estate arising from a surrogacy contract where it was undisputed that complaint was filed more than one year after decedent's death and none of enumerated exceptions in § 366.2 applied; the period was not tolled during plaintiffs' minority.
|
|||||
| People v. James, C057995,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction under Pen. Code, § 12280, subds. (b), (c), for possessing assault weapons and a.50 caliber BMG rifle did not violate defendant's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment because such weapons were not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes but were weapons of war.
|
|||||
| V.C. v. Superior Court, C059050,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 2, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
