 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, S136154,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code, § 51 et seq., did not require male patrons who alleged that they were charged by a supper club an admission fee higher than that charged to woman to demand that they affirmatively requested nondiscriminatory treatment and were refused. The club had a duty to refrain from discriminating under those circumstances.
|
|||||
| Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc., G037156,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Civ. Code, § 1368, subds. (b), (c)(1), did not limit document and transfer charges by a homeowners association's managing agent in connection with the transfer of title for home purchases; and even if the management contracts limited the amount, the homeowners were at best incidental beneficiaries and had no standing to recover under the contract.
|
|||||
| Carr v. Kamins, B191247,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties, particularly defendant, of a quiet title action, the service, which was by publication, was ineffective and the resulting judgment was invalid and vulnerable to collateral attack.
|
|||||
| City and County of San Francisco v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39, A114815,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In alleging that a union violated a city charter provision by refusing to submit all outstanding labor disputes to binding arbitration, the city alleged a violation of a rule adopted by a public agency under Gov. Code, § 3507, and the California Public Employment Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Gov. Code, § 3509, subd. (b).
|
|||||
| Estate of Yool, A114787,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegations in a petition filed by a special administrator concerning imposition of a resulting trust on property that had been held jointly with the decedent did not state a cause of action on a liability of the person and therefore did not invoke the limitation period of Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2, subd. (a); thus, the petition was timely filed.
|
|||||
| H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe, H030099,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action for violation of a nondisclosure agreement, continued sealing of documents on appeal from the denial of a motion to quash a subpoena could not be justified under Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551, 8.160, because the company identified no specific sensitive information in the allegedly improper messages or in the sealed records.
|
|||||
| Kalway v. City of Berkeley, A112569,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Irrespective of a recently executed grant deed from a husband to a wife, a parcel of real estate owned by the wife and a contiguous parcel owned by the husband were under common ownership for purposes of Gov. Code, § 66451.11, subd. (c), when the city began proceedings to merge the parcels by filing notice of intention to determine status.
|
|||||
| People v. Carey, S058489,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder trial, there was no error in instructing the jury on both first degree premeditated and felony murder, even though the information charged defendant only with malice murder under Pen. Code, § 187, because the information charged burglary and robbery special circumstances, putting defendant on notice of the felony-murder theory.
|
|||||
| People v. Duff, G036562,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a second degree murder case, Pen. Code, § 2933.2, subd. (a), precluded awarding presentence conduct credits to defendant, even though defendant's sentence for murder was stayed pursuant to Pen. Code, § 654.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
