 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Varnell, B153849,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sentencing matter, a trial court could use its discretion to strike a prior conviction for purposes of qualifying a petitioner for Cal. Proposition 36 treatment, making him eligible for probation.
|
|||||
| MacKinnon v. Truck Insurance Exchange, E028662,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurance company had no obligation to defend a wrongful death suit against its insurer; the pollution exclusion applied to a death caused by pesticide.
|
|||||
| People v. Mason, No. D035933.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly imposed on defendant a total of 7 separate 25-year-to-life enhancements on his murder, robbery, and attempted robbery convictions, even though only murder victim suffered great bodily injury or death.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilson, No. B151042.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial courts retained discretion to strike a sentencing enhancement statutorily imposed for the commission of arson by use of an accelerant.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Superior Court, No. E029464.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once the State properly filed a petition pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act, and the court obtained jurisdiction, the question of whether a person was a sexually violent predator was left to the trier of fact.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Thornton, No. B149529.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's spousal support obligation was terminated by law after his wife remarried; stipulation to non-modifiable support, list of terminating factors, and husband's conduct did not waive statutory provision of termination.
|
|||||
| Lynch v. Warwick, No. D035507.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to client's former attorney on the ground that the client failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the required actual innocence element of a legal malpractice action against the former attorney.
|
|||||
| People v. Morales, B128192,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to prove "pattern of criminal gang activity," as required to support finding on criminal street gang enhancement; detective did not offer vague secondhand testimony that was beyond defense's ability to meaningfully challenge.
|
|||||
| People v. Schlager, C036624,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be permitted to enter into a plea agreement acknowledging that two receiving stolen property counts and their attendant agreed sentences should be included in computing the maximum sentence and then argue they should not.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, No. D036108.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court erred by denying defendant an opportunity to fully litigate whether the evidence was seized during a valid inventory search pursuant to a standardized police policy.
|
|||||
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. |
