|
| |
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 8 - May 9, 2007
|
| |
Baxter v. Peterson, B188676,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case in which tenant sued landlord for fraud, trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing jury on both liability and damages issues. However, reversal on the liability issue did not require a retrial of landlord's statute of limitations defense, as the erroneous instruction with regard to liability had no effect on that defense.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Miller v. Filter, C051696,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because employees of a district attorneys association who prosecuted a criminal action against a mine were de facto deputy district attorneys engaged in activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, they were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in that prosecution under Gov. Code, § 821.6.
|
|
| |
AB Cellular LA, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, B185373,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: City's increased cell phone service tax violated requirement in Proposition 218 that proposed tax increase be submitted to voters for approval because city had revised methodology under Gov. Code, § 53750, by which it calculated tax when it decided to implement Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act and unilaterally expand tax to cover all airtime.
|
|
| |
Del Junco v. Hufnagel, B191456,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a defamation case, statements made by defendant in her counterfeit website damaged plaintiff's reputation and were actionable under Civ. Code, § 46(3), where defendant falsely stated that plaintiff, a vascular surgeon, was not a licensed physician and did not have the educational background to perform the procedures he promoted.
|
|
| |
People v. Reyes, B185929,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial court's imposition of upper term sentences did not violate the Sixth Amendment because defendant admitted multiple prior convictions on the stand, which was sufficient to support the imposition of an upper term under Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b), making the upper term the statutory maximum for his offenses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Sea Foods Co., Ltd. v. O.M. Foods Co., Ltd., B184687, B190151,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Importer did not refuse to comply with a writ of attachment in bad faith, within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., § 708.180, because it signed bills of exchange payable to two banks when it received shipments of shrimp and thus had good reason to believe that the banks, and not the insolvent shrimp exporter's judgment creditor, owned the funds.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|