|
| |
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 20, 2006
|
| |
Abouab v. City and County of San Francisco, A110940,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Order denying taxpayers' motion for attorney fees, which was made in connection with a reassessment of their property, was proper because taxpayers' admitted noncompliance with a pre-filing requirement by itself defeated their claimed entitlement to attorney fees, and because taxpayers were not successful as required by Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.
|
|
| |
Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc., A111153,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a grocery manager's action for overtime compensation, class certification was properly denied under Code Civ. Proc., § 382, because the trial court believed that very particularized individual liability determinations would be necessary, given the significant variation, week to week and store to store, in the work of the employer's 900 managers.
|
|
| |
In re Arcenio V., B186990,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Minor's conviction for possession of live ammunition was error because there was no substantial evidence to support element that the ammunition be live; there was no direct or opinion testimony that the rounds were live, and there was insufficient circumstantial evidence that the rounds were live within meaning of Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (b)(1).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|