 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, S127535,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 3, did not grant local voters a right to impose a voter-approval requirement on all future adjustments of water delivery charges. Thus, a proposed initiative that would reduce water rates was properly withheld from the ballot where it included a provision to impose such a requirement.
|
|||||
| Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn., S132433,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Proposition 64 (approved November 2004) did not affect amendment and relation back, the trial court had discretion to decide whether to grant leave to amend to substitute a new plaintiff with standing under Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17204, 17535, in an unfair competition and false advertising suit previously brought on behalf of the public.
|
|||||
| Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC, S131798,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposition 64, which provided that only the California Attorney General and local public officials were authorized to file and prosecute actions on behalf of the general public alleging violations of California's unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., applied to cases already pending when the measure took effect.
|
|||||
| Estate of Dehgani-Fard, B184461,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State university was not liable for any part of income tax liability paid by deceased's estate on after-discovered assets pursuant to Prob. Code, § 11642, because university was charitable organization exempt from income taxation on its share of assets, and estate claimed partial exemption in its tax returns based on university's charitable status.
|
|||||
| In re Andrade, A112673,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the California Board of Parole Hearings erroneously interpreted Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (d)(8), to require a Mexican inmate who was subject to deportation to have parole plans in both California and Mexico, denial of parole was proper because the commitment offense, second degree murder, was especially violent and brutal.
|
|||||
| Kleveland v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. B187427,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a title insurance company brought a motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, to compel arbitration, an arbitration clause in the policy actually issued was not enforceable because arbitration was not mentioned in the preliminary title report and because that report referred to a policy that was different than that actually issued.
|
|||||
| Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School, B185996,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment against a visiting student on her claims against a charter high school, its teacher, and a school district was proper because she had an obligation to file her claim with the district and failed to do so, and she was not otherwise excused from compliance with the California Government Claims Act, Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.
|
|||||
| Perryman v. Superior Court, No. B187073, B187161,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Speedy trial motion should have been granted under Pen. Code, § 1382, because defendants' successful motion to quash a jury venire and begin jury selection again with a new panel was not a "mistrial" motion, despite defendants' initially having labeled it as such. Thus, it did not trigger a new period in which defendants could be brought to trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
