 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Messenger Courier Assn. of Americas v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., D053391,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied declaratory relief to a nonprofit professional association of similar employers in its action that sought to invalidate a precedential tax decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board because the Board's decision applied the proper legal standards and was entitled to precedential effect.
|
|||||
| People v. Miller, H032249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's error in unnecessarily shackling defendant was prejudicial error because defendant was shackled in a manner visible to the jury, which could have contributed to the verdict of guilt by impairing his ability to participate in his defense and by undermining the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the factfinding process.
|
|||||
| Yeager v. Blue Cross of California, B207571,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, July 15, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer complied with Health & Saf. Code, ¿ 1374.55, by offering coverage for treatment of infertility, which the employer declined to buy, in a group health plan; the statute did not require full coverage and left the amount and cost to mutual agreement between the insurer and the employer, as indicated in ¿ 1374.55, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Azure Limited. v. I-Flow Corp., S164884,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation was entitled to immunity under Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1532, subd. (d), of California's Unclaimed Property Law (UPL)., only if it complied with other provisions of the UPL. If corporation delivered to the California Controller stock that did not meet notice requirements of Code Civ. Proc., ¿ 1516, subd. (b), it was not entitled to immunity.
|
|||||
| Lin v. City of Pleasanton, A121147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Referendum petition complied with the text requirement of Elec. Code, ¿ 9238, subd. (b)(2), although it did not contain a copy of the development plan adopted by the challenged ordinance, because the petition contained the text of the ordinance and its exhibits; no documents attached to or specifically incorporated into the ordinance were omitted.
|
|||||
| Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, B209863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Bramit, S064415,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During penalty-phase deliberations in a capital case, there was no error in giving an instruction on the Governor's commutation power because the jury asked whether a conviction and sentence of life without possibility of parole would mean that there was no future possibility of parole regardless of future changes of law or legal precedent.
|
|||||
| People v. Lewis, S069959,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant admitted having had sex with the victim, that he was the last person seen with her before she was murdered, and that he had committed a similar rape was sufficient for a first degree murder conviction under Pen. Code, ¿¿ 187, subd. (a), 189, and a rape special circumstance finding under Pen. Code, ¿ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C).
|
|||||
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. |
