 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haro v. City of Rosemead, B210629,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Opt-in collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act could not be maintained as a class action under Code Civ. Proc., § 382, because an opt-in feature was not authorized by California law and conflicted with the liberal notice provisions of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766(f), which contemplated only an opt-out feature.
|
|||||
| People v. Haller, C056282,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of multiple counts of criminal threats, stalking, and assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, defendant's aggregate sentence of 78 years to life in prison with possibility of parole did not constitute cruel and or unusual punishment under U.S. Const., 8th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 17.
|
|||||
| People v. Hodges, C059391,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause under Pen. Code, § 1237.5, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, barred his appeal challenging propriety of sentence enhancement for his prior serious felony conviction and his assertion that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his guilty plea. Consequently, appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| People v. Ugalino, C055469,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 9, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lacking any evidence that a drug dealer's roommate owned, had access to, control over, or an obligation to protect the marijuana defendant attempted to steal, defendant's conviction for attempted robbery of the roommate could not be sustained.
|
|||||
| Enrique M. v. Angelina V., D053395,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 10, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a child's father filed an order to show cause in which he requested that the child be enrolled at a particular middle school, and the child's mother opposed the request, the trial court did not err in failing to apply strict scrutiny to the father's request that the child attend that school.
|
|||||
| Bode v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center, B207183,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspension of an anesthesiologist's temporary privileges was properly set aside because once staff privileges were granted, the hospital assumed the burden of proof under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.3, at any hearing to justify taking action against those privileges, despite the anesthesiologist's original status as an initial applicant.
|
|||||
| California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama, C057578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Letters from a county's outside counsel were not subject to inclusion in the administrative record in a challenge to the approval of a development project; Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, did not abrogate the attorney-client privilege or work product privilege, and disclosure of the letters to the developers did not waive attorney-client privilege.
|
|||||
| Gilbert Street Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes, LLC, G040995,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under an agreement providing that arbitration would be conducted according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association and that discretionary matters were not arbitrable, a later enacted rule giving arbitrators jurisdiction to decide their jurisdiction did not apply, and the parties' buyout options were discretionary and not arbitrable.
|
|||||
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco, A118806,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax refund suit by a trustee for an employee benefit plan was barred under Rev. & Tax. Code, § 5142, subd. (a), because the trustee had failed to file a claim for a tax refund within the four-year period specified in Rev. & Tax. Code, § 5097, subd. (a), notwithstanding refund claims by related parties and a federal declaratory action.
|
|||||
| Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., S162818,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 11, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In answering a certified question, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who seeks damages under Civ. Code, § 52, claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 need not prove intentional discrimination.
|
|||||
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. |
