 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc., B194082,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A terminated employee's disability discrimination claim failed because the employee's symptoms did not constitute a "physical disability" under California's FEHA. Pain and numbness that the employee experienced in his arms, fingers, shoulders, and feet did not make it difficult for him to achieve the life activity of working.
|
|||||
| California School Employees Assn. v. Bonita Unified School Dist., B200141,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a school district's governing board did not properly apply standards set forth in Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1286.2, a discharged employee's statutory rights were violated, and a trial court had authority to review and confirm arbitration award made in employee's favor; arbitration award was final and binding in accordance with terms of parties' CBA.
|
|||||
| Montegani v. Johnson, F052530,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Masotti, C056320,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's new trial motion because the trial court did not have jurisdiction under Pen. Code, ¿ 1181, case 5, to grant a new trial on the basis of instructional error when defendant did not raise that issue in his motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| People v. New, D048497,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Severance was not required for two murder charges arising from the 1973 and 2004 deaths of defendant's first and third wives because evidence of similar circumstances in the 2004 murder would have been admissible, under Evid. Code, ¿ 1101, to show intent in a separate trial for the 1973 murder, which was originally thought to be accidental.
|
|||||
| People v. Riffey, C055649,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a jury found defendant to be a sexually violent predator after the voters approved Proposition 83, the trial court's application to defendant of the amended version of California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, which called for an indeterminate term of commitment, was not a retroactive application of the law.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc., B194374, B194374,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in refusing to disqualify counsel for individual union members in a class action asserting wage and labor law violations; although the law firm concurrently represented the union, informed written consent was properly obtained under Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310, and consent from unnamed class members was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Steiner v. Thexton, C054605,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agreement that allowed a buyer to purchase real property at a specified price if he decided to do so after pursuing county approvals and permits was an attempt to create an option agreement, not a real estate sales agreement, and it was not enforceable by specific performance pursuant to Civ. Code, ¿¿ 1550, 3391, because it lacked consideration.
|
|||||
| Whitehead v. Habig, G037991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 28, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted landlords' motion for summary adjudication where tenants failed to file the separate statement of facts in opposition required pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 437c, subd. (b)(3); the tenants' conclusory arguments failed to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
|
|||||
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. |
