 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brawer v. Brawer, B190634,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bruce v. Superior Court, D052012,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Calico Bldg. Servs. v. Phan, G038138,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. Sierra County, C055448,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. Sierra County, C055448,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county's so-called "streamlined zoning process" - one in which the county gave notice of the legislative body's hearing before the planning commission made its recommendation on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment - did not comport with California's Planning and Zoning Law, Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.
|
|||||
| Fiscal v. City & County of San Francisco, A115018,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: San Francisco's voter-enacted gun control ordinance, Proposition H, was preempted by Pen. Code, § 12026, subd. (b), and Gov. Code, § 53071, because the ordinance conflicted with state law both as to its prohibition on possession of handguns by most residents and as to its ban on sale or distribution by all residents of firearms and ammunition.
|
|||||
| In re A.G., C055509,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Andrea G., G038020,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Eckhardt, B199400,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 9, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
