|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 8, 2007
|
| |
Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, A112591,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because it was undisputed that a cable service provider had a practice of requiring all subscribers to purchase its basic cable tier, which included television programming, in order to obtain FM or music service, regardless of disability, subscribers failed as a matter of law to state a violation of the Unruh Act, Civ. Code, § 51, by the provider.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Limited Stores, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., A102915,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the treasury functions of a corporate taxpayer that comprised a unitary business owning retail stores both within and without California were qualitatively different from its principal business, Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25137, could be used to correct significant distortions arising from treating the full redemption price as gross receipts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Ashraf, C052207,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because evidence that People allegedly failed to disclose -- that defendants supported or sympathized with Taliban -- was not favorable to defendants, there was no Brady violation, and thus no conceivable theory under which the Constitution required dismissal of the case under Pen. Code, § 1054.5, for the People's failure to disclose that evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|