California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal published (citable) opinions.
-
FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY v. FREMONT GENERAL CORPORATION Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Where law firm concurrently represented two related entities, each in an entirely separate legal action, but did not represent either entity in a third matter in which one entity sued the other for unjust enrichment, disqualification of firm based on concurrent representation of …
-
FEDERICI, v. GURSEY SCHNEIDER & CO., Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Unambiguous provision in retainer agreement between accounting firm and client, requiring client--as a prerequisite to any future malpractice action--to raise existing professional negligence claims as an affirmative defense in any fee-related arbitration so that any such damages…
-
FEDERICI, v. GURSEY SCHNEIDER & CO., Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Unambiguous provision in retainer agreement between accounting firm and client, requiring client--as a prerequisite to any future malpractice action--to raise existing professional negligence claims as an affirmative defense in any fee-related arbitration so that any such damages…
-
JANE HEMADY v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Oct 9, 2006
Normal "prudent person" standard of care, rather than Knight/Kahn limited duty of care, which is applicable to certain athletic activities to avoid discouraging vigorous participation by coparticipants and chilling a coach's role in pushing student athletes, applies t…
-
HOOD v. SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRU. Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Federal regulations governing lending and other banking activities do not preempt state consumer protection laws with regard to claims that lenders and their agents induced consumers to apply for rapid refunds without informing them that these were actually tax refund appreciatio…
-
HOOD v. SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRU. Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Federal regulations governing lending and other banking activities do not preempt state consumer protection laws with regard to claims that lenders and their agents induced consumers to apply for rapid refunds without informing them that these were actually tax refund appreciatio…
-
WARREN v. MERRILL Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Where defendant real estate agent promised plaintiff buyer his name would be placed on the title once the loan in the agent's daughter's name--who provided no funds but was placed on title because, according to agent, plaintiff needed co-borrower--was funded and escrow cl…
-
WARREN v. MERRILL Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Where defendant real estate agent promised plaintiff buyer his name would be placed on the title once the loan in the agent's daughter's name--who provided no funds but was placed on title because, according to agent, plaintiff needed co-borrower--was funded and escrow cl…
-
CABLE CONNECTION, INC. v. DIRECTV, INC. Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Provision in arbitration agreement purporting to provide for judicial review of errors of law was void and unenforceable but was severable from the remainder of the agreement. Where agreement neither expressly allowed nor expressly prohibited classwide arbitration, arbitrators…
-
CABLE CONNECTION, INC. v. DIRECTV, INC. Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Provision in arbitration agreement purporting to provide for judicial review of errors of law was void and unenforceable but was severable from the remainder of the agreement. Where agreement neither expressly allowed nor expressly prohibited classwide arbitration, arbitrators…
-
SLOVENSKY v. FRIEDMAN Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Where plaintiff consulted attorneys to represent plaintiff in toxic mold personal injury action after statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim had run, but attorneys were able to procure a settlement for plaintiff, trial court properly granted summary judgment to attorneys…
-
SLOVENSKY v. FRIEDMAN Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Where plaintiff consulted attorneys to represent plaintiff in toxic mold personal injury action after statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim had run, but attorneys were able to procure a settlement for plaintiff, trial court properly granted summary judgment to attorneys…
-
PEOPLE v. JENKINS Part II
Oct 9, 2006
Double jeopardy clauses do not prohibit multiple conviction for the offense of aggravated assault resulting in great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury.
-
PEOPLE v. JENKINS Part I
Oct 9, 2006
Double jeopardy clauses do not prohibit multiple conviction for the offense of aggravated assault resulting in great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury.
-
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATN BRD Part III
Oct 9, 2006
California Wildlife Conservation Board's approval of project involving the conversion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat, which requires active construction and ongoing maintenance, is not categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act and does not fal…
-
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATN BRD Part II
Oct 9, 2006
California Wildlife Conservation Board's approval of project involving the conversion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat, which requires active construction and ongoing maintenance, is not categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act and does not fal…
-
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATN BOARD Part I
Oct 9, 2006
California Wildlife Conservation Board's approval of project involving the conversion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat, which requires active construction and ongoing maintenance, is not categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act and does not fal…
-
RED MOUNTAIN, LLC v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT PART-III
Oct 9, 2006
Civil Code Sec. 1069--which states that "every grant by a public officer or body...is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor"--requires a court to interpret an ambiguous grant by a public body in favor of the grantor even where other rules of construction or extrinsic …
-
RED MOUNTAIN, LLC v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT PART-II
Oct 9, 2006
Civil Code Sec. 1069--which states that "every grant by a public officer or body...is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor"--requires a court to interpret an ambiguous grant by a public body in favor of the grantor even where other rules of construction or extrinsic …
-
RED MOUNTAIN, LLC v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT PART-I
Oct 9, 2006
Civil Code Sec. 1069--which states that "every grant by a public officer or body...is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor"--requires a court to interpret an ambiguous grant by a public body in favor of the grantor even where other rules of construction or extrinsic …