 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Campagnone v. Enjoyable Pools & Spas Service & Repairs, Inc., C055050,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an excess insurer for a manufacturer and vendor failed to appear at a court-ordered appellate mediation session in a products liability action, the court declined to impose sanctions for this violation of Ct. App., Third Dist., Local Rules, rule 1(d), because the rule did not explicitly require notification of the excess insurer.
|
|||||
| Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court, H032114,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trade secret action against a customer of a misappropriator could not be found timely as a matter of law because the statute of limitations under Civ. Code, § 3426.6, began to run when the owner had reason to suspect that the customer used software with reason to know it contained trade secrets, not at undisputed time when customer actually knew.
|
|||||
| Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc., A117110,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no merit to appellants' claim that trial court erred in refusing to issue a statement of decision supporting its order granting respondent's Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, anti-SLAPP motion because a statement of decision was not required for an order on a motion; they also failed to explain why the order issued by trial court was inadequate.
|
|||||
| Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., B195889,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants did not file any declarations in support of their opposition to respondents' Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c), fee motions, appellants provided no evidence to contradict description of division of labor among respondents or collaboration on preparation of trial court and appellate pleadings relating to special motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, H030444,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., B181180,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case brought by invitee against landlord and its defaulting tenant, landlord had a duty to inspect the premises during proceedings in which it sought to evict tenant. Despite knowing of restaurant's lease violations and awareness of possible neglect of the physical condition of premises, landlord did not inspect its property.
|
|||||
| U.S. Western Falun Dafa Assn. v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, A115535, A116307,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, a group had no probability of prevailing on its Unruh Act claim against a chamber of commerce that denied group's application to participate in chamber-sponsored events because each of the events was expressive and chamber was entitled to exclude as participants those who wished to express discordant views.
|
|||||
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. |
