 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| California Consumer Health Care Council v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., A108697,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public interest organization's suit alleging that health plan's practices violated UCL was rightly dismissed; plan's disclosure of medical information regarding plan patients making medical malpractice claims against it to its counsel was authorized by Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (c)(4), and did not violate Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
|
|||||
| Gabriel P. v. Suedi D., B181184,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a paternity action, the trial court erred in setting aside voluntary declaration of paternity by mother's husband without assessing the husband's relationship to the child or his interests in the voluntary declaration, and without weighing husband's status under the presumptions of paternity set forth in Fam. Code, § 7611, subds. (c) & (d).
|
|||||
| In re Gladys L., B186442 c/w B188355,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's termination of presumed father's parental rights at the continuation of a Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, hearing was error because it was neither alleged nor proven under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, that the father was an unfit parent; due process therefore prohibited the termination of his parental rights.
|
|||||
| Kreeger v. Wanland, C049470,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion under the anti-SLAPP statute was properly denied in a malicious prosecution action because plaintiffs would probably be able to establish that defendants, when filing their prior malicious prosecution action, did not have probable cause to believe that plaintiffs lacked probable cause as to negligence in plaintiffs' personal injury suit.
|
|||||
| People v. Queen, C046852,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior convictions for making criminal threats were properly treated as strikes under Pen. Code, § 667, on his sentence assaulting a prosecutor when the verdicts were being read during a criminal threats trial because the offenses were prosecuted as felonies and were not reduced to misdemeanors at sentencing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
