 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
