 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dowling v. Zimmerman, Nos. D032128, D032824.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawsuit against attorney was ruled to be SLAPP suit, and attorney was entitled to reasonable fees in defending suit. Plaintiff could not automatically stay enforcement of judgment without posting appeal bond.
|
|||||
| Las Virgenes Educators Ass'n v. Las Virgenes Unified Sch. Dist., No. B134651.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Original poor conduct marks given students were properly preliminarily reinstated. "Grades" in the statute included them, administrators had not argued "clerical mistake" by the teacher on appeal, and circumstances had not warranted the change.
|
|||||
| People v. Hill, No. A088560.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of molesting his granddaughter, there was no likelihood under instructions given that jury would find it could convict him of current offense solely due to prior sexual offense.
|
|||||
| Macedo v. Bosio, No. A090484.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if belated discovery could be established, in any event the maximum elapsed time for a suit under either the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act or otherwise was seven years after the transfer.
|
|||||
| Magill v. Superior Court of Madera, F035276,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plain photos of unidentified client's van, that attorney showed police with license plates redacted to see if it was the hit and run one they sought, were not attorney-client privileged from search warrant even if leading to client's identity.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Maldonado, No. A089538.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Billboard advertising off-premises goods and services was properly enjoined although advertisers rented space in building; no actual services were performed or goods produced, so billboard violated Outdoor Advertising Act.
|
|||||
| People v. Lara, No. F031900.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant's request to discharge retained counsel was denied because the court applied the Marsden test, applicable only to court-appointed counsel, and the motion was not untimely or made for delay, a new trial was granted.
|
|||||
| Bird v. Saenz, B134886,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California wrongful death plaintiffs did not have to show defendants' negligence was exclusive substantial death cause. Bystanders could recover for contemporaneous awareness of injury; visual perception was not required.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, No. S088387.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Invalid parole revocation fine fell within the class of sentencing errors that were exempt from the waiver rule because it presented a pure question of law, and the error was correctable without reference to factual issues.
|
|||||
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. |
