 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Orange v. Barratt American, Inc., G035627,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Gov. Code, § 66016, subd. (a), a county that had collected more in fees for building inspections and construction plan checks than the cost of performing the services could use its surplus fee revenue to cover the reasonable and necessary costs of the services, rather than lowering the fees until the entire surplus was dissipated.
|
|||||
| Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu, H029713,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Noncompetition clause that prohibited sellers of a small business, who stayed on as managers, from competing with the buyers as an owner did not vitiate the duty of loyalty; thus, preliminary injunctive relief was properly granted to the buyers in an action alleging that the sellers had breached their duty of loyalty by misusing a customer list.
|
|||||
| PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, B189856,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs raised triable issue of fact regarding law firm's vicarious liability for its attorney's alleged acts, where reasonable jury could conclude that attorney participated in removing money from client's residence in an effort to help client post bail and to ensure that firm's fees were paid or at least indirectly to serve firm's interests.
|
|||||
| People v. Crandell, S134883,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district attorney did not mention a restitution fine when he recited the plea agreement in a robbery case, the imposition of a restitution fine in accordance with Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(2), did not violate the plea agreement because the trial court accurately advised defendant that he would be required to pay restitution.
|
|||||
| People v. Prince, S036105,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was not violated by closing the courtroom during the brief portion of an FBI special agent's testimony describing a crime scene in a murder committed subsequent to defendant's arrest that remained under investigation because concern for the ongoing investigation justified the very limited closure.
|
|||||
| People v. Vibanco, H029524,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ordering defendant, who was a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle, first to stay inside the car and then to exit it and sit on the curb in the interest of the officers' safety; thus, defendant was not entitled to suppress evidence of forgery and other offenses.
|
|||||
| Ramalingam v. Thompson, H030097,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Litigation privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)(2), barred a claim for accounting malpractice arising from a neutral expert's review of community property and support issues in a marital dissolution action; because the gravamen of the complaint was the communicative conduct of stating an opinion, related noncommunicative conduct was protected.
|
|||||
| In re Calvin S., C051191,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fourth Amendment did not preclude collection of DNA samples in accordance with Pen. Code, § 296, subd. (a)(1), from defendant juvenile, who had been adjudicated under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, for committing a felony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
