 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, B182104 c/w B184549, B184127,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appointment of a receiver under Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7, subd. (c), did not violate a property owner's due process rights, although city's notice of violations did not comply with the requirements of Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.6, because the owner was adequately informed of the proceedings and of the conditions requiring correction.
|
|||||
| Haberbush v. Charles & Dorothy Cummins Family Limited Partnership, B175947,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In actions involving an assignment for the benefit of creditors, there was no federal preemption of Code Civ. Proc., § 1800, which the assignee had successfully relied on to avoid and recover preferential transfers.
|
|||||
| In re Janee W., B182530,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.2, custody of two dependent children was properly granted to their father after they were removed from the mother's home, because the reports were unambiguous in their praise for how well the minors were faring in father's custody and amply supported the finding that continued supervision was no longer necessary.
|
|||||
| Lindsay v. Lewandowski, G033173,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stipulation for settlement could not be enforced pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, because the parties never agreed on a procedure to resolve a dispute over payment terms; the stipulation for settlement provided for binding mediation if the parties failed to agree on terms, but it was unclear what the parties meant by "binding mediation."
|
|||||
| Markowitz v. Fidelity Nat. Title Co., B179923,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonsuit was properly granted for a sub-escrow because a property owner could not establish that the sub-escrow owed statutory duty to him for failing to record a deed based on provisions of Civ. Code, § 2941, and because the sub-escrow did not breach any fiduciary duty owed to the owner, or otherwise owe duty of care that it negligently performed.
|
|||||
| North Gualala Water Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., A109438,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California State Water Resources Control Board properly applied a four-part test to classify groundwater as a subterranean stream flowing through a known and definite channel, as to which it had jurisdiction under Wat. Code, § 1200; the test was consistent with the language and intent of § 1200, and substantial evidence supported the findings.
|
|||||
| People v. Arnett, C047855,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where battery defendant waived a jury trial regarding prior allegations, it was proper for trial court to determine whether defendant's current offense was a serious felony for purposes of Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1). Thus, trial court was warranted in concluding that defendant's violation of Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d), was such a felony.
|
|||||
| People v. Sanghera, C051110,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for first degree burglary in violation of Pen. Code, § 459, there was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to find that when he entered two houses, defendant intended to steal clothes to assist in his escape from the police.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Superior Court, G036362,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in not reviewing defendant's Evid. Code, § 1043, discovery requests in chambers and deciding whether parts of them should be kept confidential from district attorney and county counsel because defense counsel should be allowed to file privileged or confidential information under seal with trial court determining Pitchess motion.
|
|||||
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. |
