 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC, A121539,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the promoter of a festival that involved burning a 60-foot sculpture of a man had no duty of care to an attendee who was burned when he tripped and fell into the remnants of the effigy because after walking into the fire, the risk of stumbling on buried fire debris was an obvious and inherent one.
|
|||||
| Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp., G040823,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directors prevailed and were entitled to attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, in a suit for access to a public benefit corporation's documents because a settlement gave them the access they had been denied, which enforced the document access policy in Corp. Code, § 6334, and the open public records policy in Cal. Const., art. I, § 3.
|
|||||
| City of Irvine v. Southern California Assn. of Governments, G040513,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to review a municipality's regional housing needs assessment following a Gov. Code, § 65584.05, administrative hearing because the statutory scheme did not contemplate judicial review; no single entity controlled the entire process, as indicated in Gov. Code, §§ 65584, 65584.04, and due process was not violated.
|
|||||
| Consumer Privacy Cases, A120591, A120145 & A120151,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear sailing provisions in a consumer class action settlement stating that class counsel would seek court approval for payment up to a specified amount were proper, the amount of fees and costs awarded was reasonable, and the class was not entitled to recover the difference between the amount awarded and the maximum specified in the agreement.
|
|||||
| Doe II v. MySpace Inc., B205643,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A social networking site was not liable for sexual assaults against girls aged 13 to 15 by adults who were initially encountered on the site because the site was immune under 47 U.S.C. § 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act. Characterizing the complaint as one for failure to adopt reasonable safety measures did not avoid the immunity.
|
|||||
| Kobayashi v. Superior Court, G042173,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's application to file a notice of appeal was denied, where petitioner was the same person who had been declared a vexatious litigant. It was a virtual certainty that petitioner was prevaricating when he stated in his application that he had never been declared a vexatious litigant.
|
|||||
| Mednik v. State Dept. of Health Care Services, B193269,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a physician challenged his temporary yet lengthy exclusion from participation as a Medi-Cal provider, the physician did have a liberty interest at stake. However, because he did not identify any aspect of the administrative appeal procedure that fell short of the demands of due process, he was not entitled to a writ of mandate.
|
|||||
| People v. Bamberg, A120767,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Photographs relied on by defendant in contesting a traffic citation were "false," within the meaning of Pen. Code, § 134, because they depicted a different intersection than the one defendant claimed they showed. Therefore, defendant was properly convicted under § 134 of preparing false evidence.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., C058539,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 30, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Tameny claim, sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict in favor of a preschool director who was terminated after informing parents of a prospective student that the school had no room for the child because there was substantial evidence that the enrollment would have violated teacher-student ratios in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 101216.3.
|
|||||
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. |
