 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla, B184629,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a city official who received an extortion payment to approve a contract providing financial assistance for owners of low income housing units had a financial interest in the contract that triggered Gov. Code, § 1090, the city was entitled to recover the amount paid to the property owners; the disgorgement remedy was automatic.
|
|||||
| In re Eduardo M., B186047,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because juvenile defendant was convicted as a principal in two assaults, he could not also be convicted as an accessory to those assaults under Pen. Code, § 32, solely on the basis of his immediate flight from the scene of the crime and his subsequent denials of his own involvement, even if that conduct incidentally helped a co-principal to escape.
|
|||||
| Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Assn., Inc., G035851,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by interpreting the majority requirement in Civ. Code, § 1356, subd. (c)(4), to mean more than 50 percent of the homeowners who actually voted on a proposed amendment to the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; the statute required at least a simple majority of all of the members of the homeowners' association.
|
|||||
| Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Rea, H028841,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In accordance with Pub. Util. Code, §§ 100308, 100309, which preserved the benefits and rights of county employees who transferred to a transit authority and required recognition of the employees' representatives, the existing bargaining unit was the appropriate unit within which to hold a representation election for a supervisory bargaining unit.
|
|||||
| Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman, C049525,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In approving a project for the construction of a hotel, gas station, and convenience store complex, a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., where the city relied on an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration for an earlier project to build a motel on the property.
|
|||||
| Schneider v. California Coastal Com., B186149,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither Pub. Resources Code, § 30251, nor county's local coastal program supported unwritten policy to protect scenic views of coast from ocean-based vantage points. Thus, in deciding whether to issue coastal development permit, California Coastal Commission could not consider whether development would impact views of ocean-based vantage points.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
