 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gorham Co., Inc. v. First Financial Ins. Co., B183477,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General contractor was not entitled to notice of an insurer's intent to cancel a policy that it had issued to a subcontractor; the insurer's termination of the policy upon the request of a premium finance company was effective under Ins. Code, ¿ 673, subd. (d), which did not require notice of cancellation to additional named insureds.
|
|||||
| In re Valerie A., D047748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Before terminating a mother's parental rights, a trial court should have considered evidence relevant to the so-called "sibling exception" to adoption in dependency cases, Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E). Although the half-sister at issue had been adopted, she was still a "sibling" within the definitions of the statutory scheme.
|
|||||
| Karlsen v. Superior Court, No. B186446,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed reversible error in accepting Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 170.6, peremptory challenge filed by petitioner after appellate court's remand directed trial court to prepare a statement of decision and in transferring matter to a different judge because trial court wrongly concluded that the ¿ 170.6 challenge filed after remand was timely.
|
|||||
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. |
