 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp., B188707,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's motion for statutory attorney fees and expenses under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c), which was filed approximately two years after the denial of the employers' special motion to strike in a wrongful termination case, was timely under Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1702, 8.104, because it was filed before entry of judgment.
|
|||||
| Colburn v. Northern Trust Co., B185956,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Children of a testamentary trustor were not entitled to safe harbor under Prob. Code, § 21320, from the plain language of a no contest clause for claims relating to modification of child support because public policy on child support did not override the no contest clause, which forced an election but did not prevent enforcement of child support.
|
|||||
| Gallanis-Politis v. Medina, B187386,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employment retaliation claim should have been stricken under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, because it arose from protected activity, specifically, an investigation by supervisors in response to counsel's request in connection with the employee's underlying discrimination suit. Allegations of unprotected activity were incidental to the principal claim.
|
|||||
| In re Dina V., A115702,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a minor defendant admitted an allegation that she took a vehicle without the owner's permission, the juvenile court did not err in ordering an amount of restitution that exceeded the replacement value of the damaged car because the amount of restitution was specifically authorized by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6.
|
|||||
| In re Jessica C., No. F051144, No. F051283,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court erred in terminating a guardianship created in a dependency action as the permanent plan for two children because the court failed to evaluate, as it was obligated to do under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3, whether providing maintenance services to the children's grandfather would have prevented termination of his guardianship.
|
|||||
| LT-WR, L.L.C. v. California Coastal Com., B187666,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The California Coastal Commission was not vested with the authority to adjudicate the existence of prescriptive rights for public use of privately owned property. Thus, the trial court properly vacated the Commission's denial of a property owner's application for a permit to maintain gates and no trespassing signs on its land.
|
|||||
| People v. Gunder, C050683,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial, counsel was not rendered ineffective by failing to object to a prior extrajudicial statement of a forgetful witness because the record supported a finding that the forgetfulness was feigned. There was no Confrontation Clause error because feigned memory loss was not entire refusal to testify and did not make witness unavailable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
