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!
   State Courts - California - June 17, 2009
  
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.

Search Cases for Free
  
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.

Search Cases for Free
  
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center, S156986, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
People v. Cortes, B206770, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for 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.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.