 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Daro v. Superior Court, A111947, A112134,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tenants lacked standing under UCL to seek relief based on property owners' purported violation of Subdivided Lands Act, as their claimed injury did not result from alleged violation of the Act; any threatened loss of tenants' leasehold interests resulted from owners' lawful exercise of right to withdraw property from rental market under Ellis Act.
|
|||||
| Drybread v. Chipain Chiropractic Corp., C053568,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an unlawful detainer action alleging that a sublessee held over after the expiration of the sublease did not sound in contract, attorney fees were not barred by Civ. Code, § 1717, when it was voluntarily dismissed; the sublessee, as the prevailing party pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4), was entitled to attorney fees.
|
|||||
| Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento, C050668,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor's claim for breach of contract stemming from a construction project was untimely under Gov. Code, § 911.2, and an earlier submittal of a claim packet to the county's engineer in charge of the project did not constitute substantial compliance because the engineer was not authorized to receive claims and actual notice was not shown.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. City of Hanford, S143287,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because city viewed large department stores as particularly significant elements of planned commercial district, and because these stores had made clear the importance of retaining their ability to offer furniture sales, it was rational for city to provide an exception from general prohibition on furniture sales in district only for such stores.
|
|||||
| In re Joshua S., S137583,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Were the juvenile court to have changed the placement of two brothers with grandmother in Canada from guardianship to foster care, boys would have been ineligible for benefits under California's Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care because they would have failed to meet the requirement that they be placed in a foster family home.
|
|||||
| People v. Hernandez Rios, F050057,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By instructing the jury in a manslaughter trial with CALCRIM No. 220 to compare and consider all the evidence received throughout the entire trial, the trial court explicitly told the jurors that their conclusion had to be based on the evidence in the case; thus, the burden was not shifted to defendant to prove the existence of reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Roddy v. Superior Court, D049796,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. County of San Diego, D048038,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California's County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq., did not prohibit a county from providing a retroactive Tier A pension benefit increase pursuant to Gov. Code, § 31676.17, only to persons employed on the effective date of the resolution.
|
|||||
| Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co., No. B187802,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Escrow company could not recover attorney fees after an action against it, which alleged financial abuse of an elder and other causes of action, was voluntarily dismissed; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.5, subd. (a), did not allow a prevailing defendant to recover fees, and other causes of action overlapped the elder abuse claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
