 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rossco Holdings, Inc. v. Bank of America, B189963,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno, F049481,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America, B158840,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In consumer advocacy groups action alleging violations of Proposition 65 by hotels and retail establishments, group had served invalid notice under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 12903, on several of the defendants because it failed to specify the route of exposure; notice had to inform defendants and public prosecutor of nature of alleged violation.
|
|||||
| Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat., D048404,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was entitled to summary judgment on claims of retaliatory employment termination in violation of Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h), and wrongful employment termination in violation of public policy; the temporal proximity of a discrimination complaint and the adverse action did not, in itself, raise a triable issue of fact as to pretext.
|
|||||
| Nguyen v. Superior Court, G038475,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving an election contest over a seat on a county board of supervisors, the losing candidate's petition for a writ of mandate was denied because Elec. Code, § 16900, afforded the losing candidate a clear remedy by way of appeal.
|
|||||
| Padilla Construction Co., Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co., G036451,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An umbrella insurer had no duty to defend a contractor in an action alleging continuous damage because an unexhausted primary policy provided other insurance. Although damage existed prior to the inception of the primary policy and there was harm not even potentially covered, the lone defending primary insurer had a duty to defend entirely.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
