 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chambers v. Miller, G035400,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants in a defamation action were not entitled to attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c), of the anti-SLAPP statute because plaintiff unilaterally dismissed the claims before the motion was filed. There was nothing left for the court to strike, and therefore defendants did not prevail on a special motion to strike.
|
|||||
| David B. v. Superior Court, G036456,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dependency proceeding in which an 18-month permanency review hearing had been set pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, a father had a due process right to a contested review hearing, unfettered by the prerequisite of an offer of proof.
|
|||||
| Morgan Phillips, Inc. v. JAMS/Endispute, L.L.C., B183934,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in ruling that doctrine of arbitral immunity barred retailer's claims against arbitrator and his employer where arbitrator withdrew from arbitration proceeding for which retailer had hired him for no stated ethical reason following evidence and argument, and offered to continue mediation efforts, but refused to render arbitration award.
|
|||||
| Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC v. Public Utilities Com., G034991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Public Utilities Commission's decisions fining a wireless phone company for unreasonable and misleading practices and ordering the company to pay reparations to consumers were not preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A) because prevention of false advertising and compensation of aggrieved customers did not constitute rate regulation.
|
|||||
| People v. Jenan, F048121,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order granting a defense motion to recuse an entire district attorney's office pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1424, subd. (a)(1), (2), was affirmed on appeal; the trial court was in a better position than the appellate court to assess the likely effect of the incident from which the charged crimes arise.
|
|||||
| People v. Jenkins, B181966,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Utah convictions for aggravated robbery could not be used to enhance his California sentence for murder because the elements of robbery were not the same in California and Utah and the prosecution did not present underlying facts establishing that the robberies were serious or violent felonies within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 1170.12.
|
|||||
| People v. Lamas, G035001,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly instructed that Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a), was violated by actively participating in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and willfully promoting, furthering, or assisting in any felonious criminal conduct by them; no proof of a separate felony was required.
|
|||||
| Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, D045957,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pub. Util. Code, § 7901, did not preempt a county ordinance that prescribed an approval process for applications to install cellular telephone infrastructure, including equipment that would be installed in a public right of way within the county's jurisdiction. The ordinance did not prohibit what § 7901 commanded or command what it prohibited.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
