California, June, 2007, State Case law

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 18, 2007

Callahan & Blaine v. George Bejvl, G037400, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Charlotte Spadaro v. City of Rialto, E040748, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Estate of Mark E. Johansen v. Steven Johansen, B189895, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Anthony S. v. Phillip S., B193808, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Ivan D. v. Ivan D., B192722, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Ivan D. v. Ivan D., B192722, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Jay H. v. Jessica T., D049990, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Katelynn E. v. Michael S., E042137, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., H028343, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Buyer's claims based on its purchase contracts with sellers did not have to be adjudicated in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1338(a) because it was not necessary to determine whether the buyer actually infringed the patent of a third party, an entity not involved in the action, to determine its breach of contract claims against the sellers.

Search Cases for Free

Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff, B182966, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: In a quantum meruit action filed by law firm that had been hired by boxing manager on a contingency fee basis but was discharged prior to settlement, manager's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the number of hours firm's attorneys worked on case was properly denied because each attorney had personal knowledge of services he or she performed.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal