 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, S151615,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unions lacked standing under the unfair competition law and also lacked standing under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, ¿ 2698 et seq., in a suit alleging labor law violations because they had not suffered injury in fact under Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 17204, and were not aggrieved employees under Lab. Code, ¿ 2699.
|
|||||
| Arias v. Superior Court, S155965,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee who, on behalf of himself and other employees, sued his former employer under UCL for labor code violations had to satisfy class action requirements; however, those requirements did not have to be met in employee's representative action against employer that sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
|
|||||
| In re Martinez, S141480,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mexican national who was convicted of capital murder was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his claimed violation of the Vienna Convention had been previously denied on the merits. The procedural limitation was not preempted by a Presidential Memorandum directing state courts to give effect to a decision of International Court of Justice.
|
|||||
| Owen v. Macy's, Inc., B207719,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Lab. Code, ¿ 227.3, an employee could not claim any vested right to vacation during the first six months of employment because the employer's policy made clear in advance that vacation was not part of a new employee's compensation.
|
|||||
| People v. Hajjaj, D054754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Physical distance of an available and ready branch courtroom from the main courthouse's location, which made it impossible to bring the case to trial late in the afternoon of the last statutory day for trial, constituted good cause under Pen. Code, ¿ 1382, subd. (a), to commence the trial the next day at the branch court.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. County of Los Angeles, B208828,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim by an incapacitated patient against a county hospital was barred by the statute of limitationseven though the time to file the claim was tolled under the Government Claims Act until guardians were appointedbecause the filing date fell well beyond the three-year period set forth in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act.
|
|||||
| Sanders Construction Co., Inc. v. Cerda, E047501,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unpaid laborers of an unlicensed subcontractor were statutory employees of the general contractor under Lab. Code, ¿ 2750.5, thereby obligating the general contractor to pay their wages. Bus. & Prof. Code, ¿ 7031, did not prohibit the laborers from suing the general contractor for their wages.
|
|||||
| Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Chiu, B209550,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if plain language of Pen. Code, ¿ 1202.4, and the rules of restitution did not allow victims to recover through both a restitution order and a civil judgment, insurance carrier's status as victim's insurer allowed it to pursue a civil action against victim's former employee for reimbursement for victim's claim resulting from employee's theft.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
