 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bonner v. County of San Diego, D045238,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the California County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 allowed certain county employees to elect deferred retirement, it did not give them the right to make any further elections which could thereafter be afforded county employees.
|
|||||
| CDM Investors v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., H024142,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in the central insuring clause of umbrella policy purported to expand insurer's indemnification obligation beyond "damages"; therefore, the insurer was entitled to demurrer in insureds' action seeking coverage for costs to respond to an order of the state water quality control board to test their commercial real property leased to tenants.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Shaughnessy, D046465,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In terminating spousal support, the trial court properly considered gifts of $ 20,000 per year to a supported spouse from her parents as a changed circumstance under Fam. Code, § 4320, subd. (n). In addition, the supported spouse failed to diligently pursue retraining in order to attempt to become self-supporting.
|
|||||
| In re Summer H., B189009,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court considering a mother's motion to appoint a relative as her minor child's legal guardian had discretion under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 360, to review the proposed guardian's criminal history and other evidence as part of a best interests determination; the foster care criminal history disqualification provisions did not apply.
|
|||||
| Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo, A108886,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm had standing to intervene in its clients' lawsuit and to file a motion for attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, because it had the type of direct interest in a fee award that was necessary to support intervention; fees awarded to a successful party belonged to the attorneys, absent an enforceable agreement to the contrary.
|
|||||
| Monette-Shaw v. San Francisco Bd. of Supervisors, A110378,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Elec. Code, § 9295, language in a voter pamphlet summary of a city proposition did not control because extrinsic documents and statements disseminated to voters could not be allowed to alter meaning of the unambiguous primary elements of a bond contract without destroying certainty and promoting endless litigation over bond measures.
|
|||||
| O'Grady v. Superior Court, H028579,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Operators of online news magazines were entitled to the protection of the California reporter's shield privilege found in Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (b), and Evid. Code, § 1070; hence, the trial court erred in denying their motion for a protective order in an action brought by a company alleging that a confidential source stole trade secrets.
|
|||||
| People v. Travis, A109342,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order requiring collection of DNA samples pursuant to Pen. Code, § 296, from a defendant who was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was a legitimate governmental interest in maintaining a permanent, reliable record of identification of all convicted felons.
|
|||||
| San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., H028147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a school district's decision to close two elementary schools constituted a project for purposes of CEQA, the district properly determined that its closure decision was exempt from CEQA. Moreover, as a matter of law, substantial evidence supported the district's determination that its decision qualified for categorical exemption from CEQA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
