 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alford v. County of San Diego, D048758,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county's eligibility standard for last resort medical services was void under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 17000, because it was based on an inflexible income cap that denied any care to indigent residents whose monthly salary exceeded that cap by even $1, without consideration of their ability to pay for some or all of their medical care.
|
|||||
| Conroy v. Regents of University of California, G035537,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted summary judgment on a widow's claim a university negligently mishandled her husband's remains, where the widow presented no evidence the university mistreated the remains. The university's failure to keep track of the husband's remains did not constitute mishandling.
|
|||||
| Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A116145,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use of the pre-2005 rating schedule for a workers' compensation award was erroneous under Lab. Code, ¿ 4660, subd. (d), because a comprehensive medical-legal report issued in 2004 did not state whether any of the claimant's conditions would result in permanent disability and there was no qualifying pre-2005 report indicating permanent disability.
|
|||||
| In re Paul W. , H029866,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother forfeited claim that she was entitled to participate as party in habeas proceeding involving father's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and even assuming she had not forfeited her claim, she could not satisfy principal criterion for appellate standing under Welf. & Inst. Code, ¿ 395; she was not legally aggrieved by habeas ruling.
|
|||||
| King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., C051657,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was entitled to summary judgment in a disability discrimination case under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, ¿ 12900 et seq., because the employee failed to submit substantial evidence of pretext; his termination occurred after an investigation indicated that he had encouraged a subordinate to falsify a timecard.
|
|||||
| Melican v. Regents of University of California, G036583,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving the alleged mishandling of a decedent's remains by a university's willed body program, the university did not owe a contractual or legal duty to ensure that the decedent's cremains were not commingled with other cremains before returning them to the decedent's family.
|
|||||
| People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., B191115,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a summary judgment entered against a surety's bail bond was entered in accordance with the consent given by surety in its bond, the judgment was not appealable, and the surety's appeal of the trial court's order denying the surety's motion to vacate the summary judgment was dismissed.
|
|||||
| People v. Oropeza, D047879,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial arising from a road rage incident, defendant was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on sudden quarrel or heat of passion under Pen. Code, ¿ 192, because being cut off by another vehicle was not sufficient provocation to arouse an ordinarily reasonable person to follow and then shoot at another vehicle.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Nasmeh), H029987,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled under the Fourth Amendment to suppression of forensic evidence obtained from his vehicle in a murder case; the warrant adequately described the items sought, and although the warrant did not specify that defendant's vehicle could be seized and examined by the crime laboratory, such an examination was permissible.
|
|||||
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. |
