 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. Professional Engineers , C048282,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Implementation of provision of a memorandum of understanding entered into by State and state engineers' union limited State's ability to contract freely for architectural and engineering services because it had mandatory preference for civil service engineers; thus, it was properly enjoined as being directly in conflict with Cal. Const., art. XXII.
|
|||||
| Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons, G036080,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: E-mail message sent by a member of a hospital's executive committee questioning a company's financial condition concerned an issue of public interest under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4). Thus, an order denying the member's special motion to strike the company's complaint against him was reversed.
|
|||||
| O'Toole v. Superior Court, D047158, D047230,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence established that campus police officers acted in good faith and without malice in enforcing a community college district's permit requirement before plaintiffs could speak and distribute literature regarding their opposition to abortion, the officers were immune from liability under Gov. Code, § 820.6.
|
|||||
| People v. Mayo, B180282,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to instruct jury with CALJIC No. 2.90 during defendant's first-degree murder trial was not federal constitutional error requiring reversal where the instructions given adequately informed jury of reasonable doubt standard and the corollary due process requirement that guilt be determined only from evidence presented at trial.
|
|||||
| Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., B181175,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A construction authority was required to pay utility companies for the cost of relocating their utility lines pursuant to Pub. Util. Code, § 30631, subd. (b), where the construction authority, which had completed a project to build a light rail public transit line, was acting on behalf of a metropolitan transportation authority.
|
|||||
| People v. Corpuz, S128884,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant argued that reversal of his felony stalking conviction was required because the probationary stay away order upon which the conviction was based did not fall within the meaning of "or any other court order" as used in Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b), the quoted phrase included a stay away order issued as a condition of probation.
|
|||||
| People v. Emery, C050534,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's request for a continuance to file a motion to withdraw his no contest plea and admissions constituted, in substance, a challenge to their validity, his appeal was barred by his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1237.5.
|
|||||
| Stark v. Superior Court, C051073, C051074, C051075,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No reasonable or probable cause existed to suspect that a county auditor made a false entry within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 424, subd. (a)(3), when he made seven unauthorized transfers from the county's general reserve because the accounting entries accurately reflected the results of the unauthorized transactions and therefore were true.
|
|||||
| WFS Financial, Inc. v. Superior Court, C051414,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower's cross-complaint premised on Civ. Code, § 2983.2, and UCL against subsidiary of a federal savings association could not proceed because § 2983.2 was within the scope of state laws that 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 was intended to preempt; borrower could not use UCL to enforce statutory violation where underlying statute was preempted by federal law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
