 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., A118254, A120640,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Enjoining future communications with class members by an attorney who had urged members of a conditionally certified class to opt out of a settlement did not violate his free speech rights because the trial court had the authority to prevent improper unilateral communications and because the attorney had violated Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 2-100.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Herr, C058019,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court announced it was granting reconsideration on its own motion of a support order, it in fact ordered a full hearing on reconsideration and directed the parties both to be prepared at the hearing to present additional evidence. The trial court's action, which effectively granted a new trial, was beyond its power.
|
|||||
| People v. Cortes, B206770,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sturgeon v. Bratton, B209913,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff sought to enjoin enforcement of Special Order 40 (SO40), a policy governing a police department's interaction with illegal immigrants, SO40 survived a facial challenge. Plaintiff failed to establish that SO40's provisions inevitably posed a total and fatal conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
|
|||||
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. |
