 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Vons Companies, Inc., B179815,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was a question of fact whether the scope of a Civ. Code, § 1542, waiver in a release agreement concerning an employee's grievance extended to the employee's subsequent and unrelated employment discrimination claim; the union's negotiation and execution of the release agreement reasonably suggested that it addressed only the grievance.
|
|||||
| City of Port Hueneme v. Oxnard Harbor Dist., No. B185725,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Harbor district's acquisition of railway was not void because Harb. & Nav. Code, § 6077.5, expressly authorized district to acquire the railway property without obtaining prior consent of city in which the railroad land was located. Nothing in the record suggested that the property was used for any purpose other than that described in § 6077.5.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Saenz, A105364, A105870, A107142,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Occupied burglary, Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21), was not crime against an individual for purposes of determining whether applicant could seek criminal record exemption to work in community care facility; defendant could be convicted of the crime even though she believed dwelling was unoccupied and had no contact with occupant during burglary.
|
|||||
| Estate of Saueressig, S129110,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a will contest case, the signature of a notary public and her husband did not satisfy the requirement of Prob. Code, § 6110, subd. (c), that a will be signed by two witnesses, because the husband's signature was affixed after the decedent's death.
|
|||||
| Foster v. KNTV Television, Inc., H037278,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy, H028539,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizens who opposed construction of a large retail store were not entitled to a writ of mandate to set aside the city's certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project; the city gave sufficient notice of a draft EIR and complied with Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (a), by providing responses to comments.
|
|||||
| Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, S133464,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public disclosure of competing proposals regarding the lease of a parcel of land at a city-owned airport properly could await conclusion of the city agency's negotiation process, but before final approval of the contract. The proposals submitted to the city were, during the negotiation process, exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code, § 6255.
|
|||||
| Minch v. Department of California Highway Patrol, C050338,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers had no duty of care as to a tow truck operator injured at a traffic accident scene because the officers did not create or increase the risk of harm that led to the operator's injuries; further, no special relationship existed between the officers and the operator such that the officers would have had a duty to protect him.
|
|||||
| People v. Sandoval, D045846,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
