|
|
| |
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 - July 31 - August 3, 2009
|
| |
1538 Cahuenga Partners, LLC v. Turmeko Properties, Inc., B209548,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a quiet title action, a party's oral statement to the trial court in chambers that he understood and agreed to the terms of a settlement satisfied the requirement of Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, that a party stipulate to a settlement orally before the court; it was not necessary that the party consent to the settlement on the record.
|
|
| |
Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, G036896,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In light of unsettled case law regarding a pollution exclusion when an insurer rejected a claim, the insurer acted reasonably in denying a defense and could not be liable for bad faith tort damages, for attorney fees, or for punitive damages under Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a). An oral promise not pleaded could not serve as a basis for recovery.
|
|
| |
McMahon v. Craig, G040324,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a veterinary malpractice case, a dog owner could not recover for the emotional distress caused by her dog's death because none of the conduct, including alleged efforts to cover up malpractice, was sufficiently extreme or outrageous for intentional infliction and the owner was neither a witness nor a direct victim for purposes of negligence.
|
|
| |
Paland v. Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. Bd. of Directors, A122630,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Water and sewer base charges imposed while water service was turned off were fees subject to Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, rather than assessments subject to Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4; the services were immediately available to the owner pursuant to Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (b)(4), because service connections had been provided.
|
|
| |
People v. Black, E046128,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's poor performance on probation could properly be considered in imposing an aggravated term; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.435(b)(1), did not preclude consideration of defendant's conduct between the original grant of probation and the reinstatement of probation, and any improper consideration of events thereafter was harmless error.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Thorn, A121336,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a reasonable person would view a carport contiguous to and functionally interconnected with inhabited apartment building as enclosed area into which member of general public could not pass without authorization, under reasonable belief test, defendant's entry of carport with felonious intent was first-degree burglary under Pen. Code, § 460.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., S147552,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Installing a hidden video camera in an office, although a privacy intrusion under Cal. Const., art 1, § 1, was not actionable because it was not highly offensive to a reasonable person, given that an unknown person was accessing pornography on the Internet and the employer wanted to provide a wholesome environment for abused children in its care.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|