 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beverly v. Anderson, No. C031293.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant county had a mandatory duty under the statute to issue a replacement warrant within five working days after the claimant filed a proper affidavit attesting to the loss of the original warrant.
|
|||||
| Boehm & Assocs. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. C031700.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reconsideration of workers' compensation appeal was improperly denied, as interest began to accrue 60 days after employer received medical providers' bills, regardless of when employer's liability was admitted or accepted.
|
|||||
| Enyart v. City of L.A., No. B108348.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit over loss of photographic negatives and prints of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the jurors' negative general statements about appellant City and its police department were based on bias and required a new trial.
|
|||||
| Jamestown Builders v. General Star Indem. Co., No. G021620.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of insurance contract and bad faith case, application of no-voluntary-payments provision in insurance policy precluded coverage for repair expenses voluntarily incurred by home developer.
|
|||||
| Kelsey v. Waste Management, No. A084731.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant raised triable issues by submitting a declaration that when he was filing for bankruptcy protection with the aid of his attorney, discussion of the case did not arise, and he was unaware that he was required to disclose to it.
|
|||||
| Lewco Iron Metals v. Superior Court, No. E022135.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In combined action for wrongful death and personal injuries, trial court erred in entering judgment on plaintiff father's arbitration award notwithstanding plaintiff son's trial de novo request.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. At&T Wireless Servs., No. C029233,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The displeasing appearance in size and shape of a neighboring structure, the only effect of which was diminution in value of the adjacent property, did not constitute a nuisance or give rise to an inverse condemnation claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Carpenter, S006547,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In death penalty case, trial court did not erroneously excuse for cause jurors because of their views on capital punishment, and trial court need not have paid jurors more than statutory amount of $ 5 per day.
|
|||||
| People v. Ibanez, No. E024579.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, November 29, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of coram nobis was an order after judgment and thus was appealable; to prove the petition, defendant had to show there was a fact that was not represented at trial and that would have prevented rendering of judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
