 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc., H028630,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment finding that an alleged joint venture did not exist; there was no meeting of the minds on all material points, within the meaning of Civ. Code, §§ 1580, 1550, 1565, because the parties had not made clear the amount of money to be raised from outside investors and were still discussing compensation.
|
|||||
| Gottlieb v. Kest, B178729,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for defendant was improperly based on judicial estoppel, even though, in a prior bankruptcy case, plaintiff did not list any legal claims as assets, an omission seemingly at odds with filing of the current suit, because the bankruptcy court did not accept the truth of plaintiff's omission, eliminating threat to judicial integrity.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, B184548,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which an inmate had been confined as an SVP pursuant to California's SVPA, the reversal of the inmate's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender did not preclude the trial court from continuing with SVP proceedings that had already begun. By the time the conviction was reversed, the SVP petition process had already begun.
|
|||||
| Jogani v. Jogani, B181246,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because courts that ordered judgment debtor examinations pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 708.110 et seq., did not adopt or accept the truth of the judgment debtor's testimony, the doctrine of judicial estoppel could not be applied against the judgment debtor to bar a subsequent claim involving assets that he failed to disclose to his creditors.
|
|||||
| Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC v. Public Utilities Com., G034991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Demetrulias, S046733,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncharged robbery was sufficiently similar to a charged robbery murder for the uncharged crime to be admitted under Cal. Evid. Code § 1101 as relevant to defendant's intent because twice in one evening, defendant confronted an older man alone at home, inflicted serious wounds, including to the chest, and in both instances he claimed self-defense.
|
|||||
| People v. Vasquez, S128854,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District attorney's office should have been disqualified under Pen. Code, § 1424, because prosecutor declined to waive jury trial to avoid appearing to provide favors to defendant whose parents had been employed by prosecutor's office. Failure to disqualify was harmless because there was no showing that a bench trial would have been more favorable.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Superior Court, S129476,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee who worked on a job assignment that lasted only one day could seek late wage payment penalties; the discharge element of Lab. Code, §§ 201, 203, could be satisfied either when an employee was involuntarily terminated from an ongoing employment relationship or when an employee was released after completing a specific job assignment.
|
|||||
| Stavropoulos v. Superior Court, B189507,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The two-year limitations period set forth in Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1, applied to a malicious prosecution action because the legislature intended the phrase "injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another" to embrace all infringements of personal rights, including malicious prosecution.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
