 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of Educ. v. Sacramento County Bd. of Educ., No. C034268.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The language in a statute was directory as opposed to mandatory in requiring that a student be expelled within 40 days of having been found in possession of a pipe bomb. Therefore, the school board retained jurisdiction in the matter.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Dep't of Justice, No. A088483.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 did not authorize petitioner, a permit holder, to possess or sell an unregistered assault weapon. Thus, Department of Justice properly refused to renew his permit to sell assault weapons.
|
|||||
| Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, No. B140077.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants had engaged in campaign money laundering, they were not entitled to the statutory protection from suit which prohibited Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
|
|||||
| Apt. Ass'n of L.A. County v. City of L.A., No. S082645.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Los Angeles ordinance that imposed inspection fee on landlords was not an assessment against property owners' ownership interests that violated Proposition 218, but a fee for engaging in residential rental business.
|
|||||
| Bullock v. Md. Casualty Co., No. A080499. No. A081283. No. A081878.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where city, in suit against insureds under San Francisco Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance, made no effort to have insureds pay damages for which insurers would have been liable, insurers had no duty to defend insureds.
|
|||||
| Eckert v. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co., A085000,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in litigation alleging cellular phone company failed to disclose rates for customers with hearing impairments when California Public Utilities Commission was still actively pursuing policy.
|
|||||
| People v. Howze, No. B134049.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were proper, because he was estopped by his conduct from arguing that the trial improperly began in his absence, and his motion for self-representation was properly found to be manipulative.
|
|||||
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. |
