|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
California - January 27, 2000
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Korean Phila. Presbyterian Church v. Cal. Presbytery, No. B134338.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Preliminary injunction was reversed, where injunction was overbroad, and many of the issues in the case were not properly justiciable because of their religious nature, unripeness, or absence of a party with standing.
|
|
| |
People v. Acuna, No. B131760.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was not subjected to an ex post facto law in denying his motion to expunge sentence, nor did the application of the amendment violate equal protection, due process, or the benefit of his plea bargain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Hoover, No. E020011.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In domestic violence case, proper standard for proving past conduct was by preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt; thus, evidence of defendant's past conduct was sufficiently established by victim's testimony.
|
|
| |
People v. Madrigal, No. B129746.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellant never attempted to inform the probation office of his whereabouts, used fictitious names, and a subsequent sentence was not in prison; thus, he was not guaranteed concurrent sentences for federal and state offenses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|