|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - May 31, 2002
|
| |
|
| |
Basura v. U. S. Home Corp., No. B151131.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where buyers sued builder for home design and construction defects, and court denied builder's petition to compel arbitration, state statute was preempted by FAA, and thus buyers could not invoke statute to avoid arbitration agreements.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Lopez v. C.G.M. Development, Inc., No. B150621.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2002, Decided , May 31, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Just because an employee was entitled to sue his employer for damages because the employer was not properly insured, this did not authorize the employee to sue the property owner, who was not to be held responsible for the employer's wrongdoing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, G025980,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where supplemental declaration submitted by landlord and trustee in reply to assignee's answer to summary judgment motion was not in a separate statement, it was not admissible, and trial court erred in considering the evidence.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|