 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lectrodryer v. Seoulbank, No. B125737.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that defendant was unjustly enriched when it retained for itself funds that the customer used to purchase a letter of credit for the purpose of paying plaintiff when the letter of credit expired.
|
|||||
| People v. Borrelli, No. F028540.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The aim and effect of this statute were not to suppress speech, but to protect individuals in the exercise and enjoyment of their constitutional rights from invasive, oppressive conduct that infringes on those rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Guzman, No. F031127.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant personally inflicted the injury on his passenger by turning his vehicle into oncoming traffic; the passenger suffered great bodily injury, which rendered appellant's offense a felony pursuant to the statute.
|
|||||
| People v. McHenry, No. B129910.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be assessed a penalty assessment on restitution fines because the express statutory language was indicative of unmistakable legislative intent that no penalty assessment was to be imposed on restitution fines.
|
|||||
| Price v. Superior Court, E024710,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The joinder of offenses was authorized under the statute because all charges were of the same class when they involved physical abuse and injury to children, either through willful neglect or actual assaultive behavior.
|
|||||
| People v. Flynn, No. B123817.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction affirmed; though defendant's words and actions prior to taking victim's property generated little fear, his willful use of victim's fear to accomplish retention of her property constituted a robbery.
|
|||||
| People v. Ranger Ins. Co., No. B126008.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When notice of forfeiture of bail bond was by mail, summary judgment may first be entered on the 186th day after the mailing of notice and the court's power to enter summary judgment expired on the 275th such day.
|
|||||
| Walker v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. A083865.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insurers charged rates approved by Insurance Commissioner there was no violation of the law to support a claim for disgorgement of premiums and statutory authority precluded civil challenges to recoup premiums.
|
|||||
| Zink v. Gourley, No. B129604.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Drunk driver lost appeal of license revocation despite having a commercial license, because he refused sobriety test; commercial driver's license mitigation provisions are inapplicable to refusal suspensions.
|
|||||
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. |
