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!

   State Courts - California - June 14, 2007

  
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, D049427, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Insured's complaint against his insurer did not state an actionable claim under California law where the validity of insured's claims depended on a conclusion that the attorney fees and costs incurred by insured to obtain a settlement with a third party were deducted from insured's gross recovery in calculating whether insured had been made whole.

Search Cases for Free

  
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A116145, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
County of Imperial v. Superior Court, C048984, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A dispute over an approved water transfer agreement was properly dismissed because the statute of limitations had run as to two unnamed water districts that were indispensable parties, in part because they were recipients of approval under Pub. Resources Code, ? 21167.6.5, in that the approval contemplated the future transfer of water to them.

Search Cases for Free

  
Garabet v. Superior Court, B195944, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A lasik surgery patient was barred from bringing a medical malpractice action by application of the three-year statute of limitations contained in Code Civ. Proc., ? 340.5, where the patient did not file his lawsuit until more than seven years after the surgery, even though he suffered damaging effects almost immediately after the procedure.

Search Cases for Free

  
Helen L. Quan v. Natividad Delgado, B185190, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
Jones v. Department of Corrections, D048281, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Employee failed to present evidence of harassment under Gov. Code, ? 12940, subd. (j)(1), on summary judgment because she stated that she did not know whether hostile behavior by male co-workers was prompted by her gender or race; she also did not show that the conditions she described were sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment.

Search Cases for Free

  
People v. Reyes, C052592, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for, inter alia, possession of methamphetamine for sale, a juror hearing CALCRIM No. 103, which was the instruction that explained reasonable doubt, could not reasonably conclude that the fact defendant had been arrested or brought to trial was evidence of guilt.

Search Cases for Free

  
People v. Rivera, S138898, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Police officers were not required under the Fourth Amendment to corroborate an anonymous tip before contacting a homeowner and seeking consent to enter and search the residence where the tipster indicated defendant was located. The encounter between the police and the homeowner was plainly consensual.

Search Cases for Free

  
People v. Westbrooks, D048175, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A trial court did not violate defendant's due process right to have his guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt by instructing the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 220 because the instruction did not tell the jury that it could not consider any perceived lack of evidence in determining whether there was a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top