 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acosta v. Kerrigan, B191810,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had jurisdiction to decide a tenant's contractual claim for attorney fees incurred in connection with the tenant's successful petition to compel arbitration of a lease dispute; moreover, the trial court could make a fee award before completion of the arbitration and before a prevailing party was identified at the arbitration.
|
|||||
| In re Amber F., G037570,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a termination of parental rights case, the mother waived defective Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., notice by not objecting on remand; although a parent ordinarily could raise a notice defect for the first time on appeal, successive or serial appeals challenging ICWA notices for the first time on appeal were improper.
|
|||||
| Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., G037375,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumers who alleged that a cellular telephone service provider's customer service agreement included unconscionable terms, but who did not allege assertion of those terms against them, lacked standing to assert an unfair competition claim under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, because they did not show injury in fact and loss of money or property.
|
|||||
| People v. Cervantes, No. B183412,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug case, the trial court erred in approving a settled statement prepared by the prosecutor when it could not remember the case and defendant's trial counsel was unavailable; because the missing testimony was a crucial part of the record, Pen. Code, § 1181, subd. (9), authorized vacating the trial court's approval of the settled statement.
|
|||||
| Roddy v. Superior Court, D049796,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in requiring jury commissioner to disclose certain DMV information in his possession in connection with criminal defendants' investigation into whether jury selection process managed by commissioner complied with U.S. Const., 6th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 16, because defendants had not shown that information was relevant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
