 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Casden v. Superior Court, No. B188549,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner, as a successful appellant, had exercised a peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, to disqualify judge, he did not have another peremptory challenge to use, unless there was another appeal from a judgment and he was once again a successful appellant, and he found himself back before prior trial judge for a new trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Cole, S121724,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, Health & Saf. Code, § 1340 et seq., did not create an exemption to statutory prohibitions when a vision health care service plan sublet space within retail stores of a registered dispensing optician and employed optometrists to provide services to plan subscribers at those locations.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzalez, S072946,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At penalty phase of capital murder trial, due process and Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq. required that the State provide discovery of its evidence in rebuttal to defendant's mitigating evidence. Failure to do so was prejudicial error because defendant did not present the proffered evidence, which had contributed to a hung jury at prior penalty trial.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Superior Court, B187797,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee who worked three 12-hour days weekly was not entitled to overtime pay pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050, known as Wage Order 5, for all hours worked beyond the regularly scheduled alternative workweek schedule; overtime was due under § 11050, subd. 3(B)(8), only after 40 hours of work in a week, or over 12 hours in a given day.
|
|||||
| Summers v. McClanahan, B182869,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment because leaving copies of the summons and complaint with an agent who was not authorized to accept service of process did not constitute substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc., § 416.90, absent a close relationship, even though the agent forwarded the documents to counsel.
|
|||||
| Brierton v. Department of Motor Vehicles, D047088,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A two-year administrative license suspension could be enforced under Veh. Code, § 13352, subd. (a)(3), even though the criminal sanctions for the underlying offenses were less stringent, because the imposition of the more stringent administrative sanction did not mean that it violated the separation of powers doctrine in Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.
|
|||||
| Garber v. Levit, 613808,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a residential unlawful detainer action that was based on a notice to terminate tenancy under S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.9, subd. (a)(8), also known as the owner-move in provision, Proposition G's 25 percent ownership requirement for owners acquiring an interest in the property prevailed over the Bierman Amendment's 50 percent ownership requirement.
|
|||||
| Perry v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., A108619,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public park district was immune from liability for a drowning death because the 14-year-old decedent engaged in a hazardous recreational activity by swimming at a time and place where no lifeguards were provided and reasonable warning had been given under Gov. Code, § 831.7, subd. (b)(1); swim fee exception of § 831.7, subd. (c)(2), did not apply.
|
|||||
| State of California ex rel. Nee v. Unumprovident Corp., B183487,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff did not allege that defendant, an insurance company, engaged in insurance claims fraud by presenting false or fraudulent claims to another insurance company, defendant was not the proper subject of a qui tam lawsuit brought under Ins. Code, § 1871.7.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
