 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club , B191272,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal injury complaint alleging alternatively that an insured intentionally assaulted the third party plaintiff and that the insured acted negligently and unreasonably in self-defense pled facts showing that a potential for coverage existed under a homeowner's policy; thus, it was error to sustain the insurer's demurrer to a bad faith action.
|
|||||
| Fassberg Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, B181989,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence did not support a finding that a contractor submitted 2,983 false claims to a housing authority, in violation of Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq., or a resulting $ 4 million civil penalty, because change order proposals and weekly payroll reports submitted in support of requests for payment were not claims under the False Claims Act.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. The Monadnock Co., B191267,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terminated employee's allegations regarding threats of violence made by coworker against employee and his colleagues were sufficient to state a claim for wrongful termination based on public policies that require employers to provide a safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace.
|
|||||
| In re Barker, A114686,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process was violated by a 2005 denial of parole under Pen. Code, § 3041, for three murders committed in 1977 because the parole board relied on unsupported findings and on a commitment offense that was no more callous than most murders, despite the inmate's planning and use of a chisel to hit one of the three victims before shooting him.
|
|||||
| In re Gray, B197193,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Governor's decision that found an inmate unsuitable for parole was not supported by some evidence because there was no evidence to support governor's findings that the second-degree murder committed by inmate was cold and calculating or premeditated; thus, the crime was not especially heinous under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c)(1).
|
|||||
| In re Lemanuel C., S144515,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because extended detention scheme under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1800 et seq., included requirement that a defendant be physically dangerous because of mental disorder that caused serious difficulty in controlling behavior, scheme did not require separate serious and well-founded risk of reoffense finding to preserve its constitutionality.
|
|||||
| In re Mary G., D049027,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fam. Code, §§ 7611 & 7570 et seq., violated equal protection principles to the extent that they purported to deny presumed father status on the sole ground father made his voluntary acknowledgement of paternity in Michigan instead of California. The father qualified for presumed father status and reunification services as a matter of right.
|
|||||
| O'Dea v. Bunnell, C052673,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison officials were entitled to summary judgment in a correctional officer's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that the officials orchestrated a fight between rival prison gangs, causing injury; even if they did so, the correctional officer's due process right to liberty was not violated because no state action restrained him from defending himself.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzalez, B186733,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 24, 2007, Decided
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. |
