 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brassfield v. Moreland School Dist., H028855,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The presence of an alternate juror in the jury room during deliberations was not reversible per se, where the presumption of prejudice because of the alternate's presence in the jury room was rebutted. The jurors were swiftly and unambiguously instructed to disregard any input from the alternate and to begin their deliberations anew.
|
|||||
| Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America, B169636,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case alleged violations of Cal. Proposition 65 based on secondhand smoke, the trial court should not have entered consent judgments between hotels and groups purporting to represent the public because it was necessary first to consider the public interest, as required by Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.7.
|
|||||
| Essex Ins. Co. v. Five Star Dye House, Inc., S131992,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an insured assigned his claim for bad faith breach of the duty to defend, the assignee could assert a right to recover Brandt attorney fees incurred in prosecuting the assigned claim because the assignee stood in the shoes of the insured and sought to recover the monetary value of wrongfully withheld policy benefits, not personal interests.
|
|||||
| In re E.H., E039350,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's challenge of finding under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, at permanency planning hearing that ICWA did not apply was rejected, as she failed to respond to court's exhortations pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1439(d), to disclose child's Indian ancestry or to object to social worker's reports stating that ICWA did not apply.
|
|||||
| Laycock v. Hammer, D046422,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, by its terms, a decedent's life insurance trust was irrevocable, once the decedent transferred the policy to the trust, he no longer had any ownership interest in the policy, and it was not subject to the claims of his creditors; thus, in accordance with Prob. Code, §§ 18200, 19001, judgment creditors were not entitled to proceeds of policy.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilson, S130157,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case that concerned the admissibility of DNA evidence to prove identity, because the prosecution's expert's testimony did not assume that the race of the perpetrator was the same as the race of defendant, that testimony was relevant, nonprejudicial, and properly received.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Gustafson, C048171,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A life beneficiary's assets, which included a duplex where she no longer resided, could be considered in determining whether the principal of a residual trust should be invaded for her support. Prob. Code, § 16371, required the trustee to make disbursements for the trustee's attorney fees and costs from the principal.
|
|||||
| Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, C048390,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of costs and attorney fees to defendants on their challenge to plaintiffs' undertaking to stay enforcement of a judgment for defendants on their special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, pending appeal was proper because plaintiffs' inadequate sureties led to the litigation regarding the undertaking.
|
|||||
| County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist., D046728,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A community college district prejudicially abused its discretion by certifying a final EIR for a construction project, adopting a statement of overriding considerations and related CEQA findings, and approving the master plan for the project because the district's infeasibility findings were not supported by substantial evidence or applicable law.
|
|||||
| RLI Ins. Co. v. CNA Casualty of California, B184637,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An excess insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against the primary insurer, based on an unreasonable refusal to settle the underlying tort claim, where the underlying tort claim did not go to trial, and no excess judgment was entered against the insured.
|
|||||
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. |
