 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lee v. Superior Court, No. S077289.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The false personation of a deceased relative was a criminal violation; the legislature intended that deceased persons and their estates were meant to be protected by the statute, thus defendant's writ of prohibition was properly denied.
|
|||||
| People v. Ervin, No. S021331.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No abuse of discretion, denial of due process, or other error in the court's ruling denying severance, or in any other rulings, and prosecutor's comments regarding defendant's lack of remorse were unobjectionable.
|
|||||
| Writers Guild of Am., W. v. City of L.A., No. B129519.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In constitutional challenge to city's business tax ordinance, the court had no jurisdiction to hear writers' federal civil rights claims, as writers failed to demonstrate how they might have suffered irreparable injury.
|
|||||
| Florence W. Medical Clinic v. Bonta, No. B118106.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 7, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent's final administrative decision regarding overpayment of Medi-Cal fees was adopted 679 days after the hearing closure, which exceeded each statutory time limitation, and the entire amount claimed due was forfeited.
|
|||||
| Dodge v. Superior Court, No. D033834.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Letter did not sufficiently comply with statutory requirements to grant new trial motions; plaintiff properly served defense counsel with a conformed copy of the judgment pursuant to the statutory requirements.
|
|||||
| Kernes v. Superior Court, No. D034252.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandate filed with the appellate division should have been vacated because it failed to give notice the state was seeking, or the appellate division was considering, a peremptory writ of mandate.
|
|||||
| Peatros v. Bank of Am., No. S076454.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal legislation prohibiting employment discrimination impliedly amended banking legislation granting immunity. Only to the extent that federal legislation conflicted with state law was that legislation preempted.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, No. S062266.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncertified computer printouts reporting criminal history information were admissible under official records exception to the hearsay rule as evidence that appellant served prison terms for prior felony convictions.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Department of Corrections, No. E023875.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's complaint did not allege necessary material changes in terms of her employment to cause employment injury; complaint of interference was not employment related, therefore plaintiff was not entitled to pursue it.
|
|||||
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. |
