 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Collier v. City and County of San Francisco, A113171,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: San Francisco properly transferred building permit fee revenues to its Planning and Fire Departments to cover actual costs incurred by those departments in performing regulatory activities related to the building permit. The city did not establish a special tax in violation of Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4, or Gov. Code, § 50076.
|
|||||
| Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc., C051746,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer did not carry its burden of establishing that employee was an exempt administrative employee under Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a), and not entitled to overtime compensation because employee engaged in the core day-to-day business of employer and had no personal effect on the policy or general business operations of employer or its customers.
|
|||||
| Osumi v. Sutton, No. B191204,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a home buyer and seller both sought relief under Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, to enforce settlement agreement requiring the seller to buy the house back from the buyer, trial court did not err when it ordered a new closing date, where it was necessary to impose a new closing date in order to grant the relief sought by both parties.
|
|||||
| People v. Hobbs, E038779,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violating Pen. Code, § 311.4, subd. (c), were proper; he took advantage of fact that victims were in a place where he knew they would expose themselves, a girls' locker room, and manipulated their environment so as to further take advantage of their vulnerability, thus posing them without having to direct them in person.
|
|||||
| Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc., No. H029138,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The operator of a day care home stated claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, § 12955 et seq., for source-of-income discrimination and disparate impact discrimination effecting women and families with children because a mortgage lender refused to make a loan on security that was intended to be used as a day care home.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
