|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 16 - June 19, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Employers Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., A110973,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an environmental action, a defending insurer was entitled to contribution from a sequential primary insurer that had previously entered into comprehensive settlement with the insured because case law did not suggest that under Civ. Code, § 1432, a settling insurer was responsible to contribute only to costs of cases pending at settlement.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Wasti v. Superior Court, G036095,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because Gov. Code, § 12962, only imposed a service requirement upon FEHA claims that were submitted to state agency for investigation, there was no service requirement for an employee who elected a civil action rather than an administrative investigation and who was not represented by counsel at the time she sought right-to-sue letter from agency.
|
|
| |
In re Enrique G., D047692,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a dependency proceeding, a mother's due process rights were violated because the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for her based only a statement by her counsel that the appointment would assist him. The error was harmless, however, because counsel and the guardian ad litem acted to ensure the broadest protection of the mother's rights.
|
|
| |
Independent Energy Producers Assn. v. McPherson, S135819,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because references in the California Constitution to legislative power included the people's initiative power, a reference to the legislature's plenary power in Cal. Const., art. XII, § 5, did not preclude the people, through the initiative process, from conferring additional powers or authority upon the California Public Utilities Commission.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Hudson, S122816,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a trial for eluding peace officer, the definition of "distinctively marked" in Veh. Code, § 2800.1, was incorrect because it did not state that the police car had to have features, in addition to a red light and a siren, distinguishing it from vehicles not used for law enforcement so as to give notice that the pursuit was by the police.
|
|
| |
Virtanen v. O'Connell, G034184,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Attorney not only breached his duty as escrow holder to stock seller, he also committed conversion where he closed transaction before conditions of the escrow instructions had been satisfied, before parties had reached written agreement on material contract terms, and after he had received a notice of rescission and demand for return of documents.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
