 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carrisales v. Dep't of Corr., No. S073601.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The California Fair Employment Act could not be used to impose personal liability on a defendant co-worker who was a nonsupervisory co-worker and the sexual harassment was not an employment practice.
|
|||||
| Cassel v. Sullivan, No. A085955.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Default entered against defendant partnership followed by a first prove-up hearing and default judgment were entirely proper without the necessity of a service of statement of damages on defaulting defendant.
|
|||||
| Gentner & Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. B128574.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As between a bank and a payee who acted in good faith, the Commercial Code clearly required bank to suffer loss occasioned by its error in accepting or paying a check covered by a stop payment order.
|
|||||
| Gonzales v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. B130285.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In wrongful death suit, applicable rule was that defendants had ability to cause omitted heir to be joined, and if defendants knew of heir but settled case without joining heir, defendants remained subject to separate action.
|
|||||
| Hammond v. Agran, No. G024266.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held that the word "qualifications," as used in the Elections Code statute governing the content of candidates' statements in voters' pamphlets, encompassed a candidate's ideas or platform.
|
|||||
| People v. Stanfill, No. A082782.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, December 9, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not clear beyond reasonable doubt that rational jury would have found defendant, who was charged with felony embezzlement by public officer count, guilty of misdemeanor equivalent absent instructional error.
|
|||||
| Barrett v. Superior Court, No. C030752.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, December 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not resolve any fact issues relating to the merits of the case at the petitioner's preliminary hearing, thus he erred in failing to recuse himself and in denying petitioner's timely disqualification motion.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, No. H017023.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, December 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's trial for recommitment did not need to commence within 30 days of defendant's release date, as the statutory procedures were directory not mandatory.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., A085701,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, December 10, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agreement that required the weaker party to arbitrate any claims that he or she may have, but permitted the stronger party to seek redress through the courts, was presumptively unconscionable.
|
|||||
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. |
