 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Orange v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp., G035853,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court lost jurisdiction to declare a second forfeiture on a bail bond and to enter summary judgment against a surety because the clerk failed to send notice of the first forfeiture, as required under Pen. Code, § 1305. Notice to the surety's bail agent was not sufficient because the surety was entitled to separate notice under § 1305.
|
|||||
| Craft v. Superior Court, G036155,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that defendant suffered no prejudice under Cal. Const., art. I, § 15, cl. 1, from a 17-month delay in bringing him to trial; he spent those 17 months in jail, and months of incarceration were unaccompanied by course of treatment that served as basis for trial court's suspension of proceedings.
|
|||||
| Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn., G036069, G036454,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A condo seller's action was properly dismissed for lack of standing under Civ. Code, § 1354, subd. (a), because she attempted to enforce declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) when she no longer owned the condo; obligations she sought to enforce were obligations owed by homeowners association to buyer under CC&R's.
|
|||||
| In re Joseph P., F049193,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was not required to order new notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when the father claimed for the first time that he was Mohican, 11 months after a determination that ICWA did not apply, because the ICWA notice requirements had been met and no tribe had come forward to identify the children as Indian.
|
|||||
| Levin v. Ligon, A109477,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judicial estoppel barred an ex-husband from arguing in a civil partition action that he had an interest in financial assets held in the ex-wife's name because he had received compensation in a prior legal malpractice action based on his contrary representations to a court in England that he had lost all his rights to those same financial assets.
|
|||||
| People v. Failla, E038122,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After denying a certificate of rehabilitation, trial court properly ruled that defendant had to wait five years from the date of denial to file another petition because that conclusion was a reasonable interpretation of Pen. Code, § 4852.11, which provided that the trial court could deny the petition and determine a new period of rehabilitation.
|
|||||
| Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C050589,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) guidelines were applicable, pursuant to Lab. Code, § 4600, subd. (b), to a case that was pending when § 4600, subd. (b), was enacted; hence, it was error to find chiropractic treatment for injured worker that did not comply with the ACOEM guidelines to be reasonable and necessary.
|
|||||
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. |
