 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Huntington Beach v. Petersen Law Firm, No. E029742.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Declaratory judgment was affirmed where trial court did not err in ruling city was not obligated to reimburse expenses incurred by law firm in defending employees. City was not obligated to provide employees with separate defense.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, G028171,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal did not preclude court from hearing subsequent appeal of trial court's judgment and was not a settlement barring appeal. Automobile liability policy provision limiting coverage for permissive users was unenforceable.
|
|||||
| In re Arturo D., No. S085213, No. S085218.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, permitted limited warrantless searches of areas within a vehicle, where identification documentation could reasonably be expected to be found.
|
|||||
| People v. Brach, No. C037369.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants convicted of cultivating marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale could not raise alleged errors on appeal, as neither defendant objected on the record in the trial court.
|
|||||
| People v. Cervantes, B145387,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One Strike Law and Three Strikes Law were cumulative sentencing schemes. Trial court could not use same prior conviction to both qualify defendant for 25-years-to-life sentence under One Strike and the Three Strikes Law.
|
|||||
| People v. Lawley, No. S014497.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where death sentence was imposed upon defendant, who represented himself with the assistance of advisory counsel, court concluded defendant was not entitled both to represent himself and to receive benefit of professional representation.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, No. D036728.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of residential burglary; by intending to use the soap, shampoo, and hot water of the homeowner, defendant manifested an intent to commit a larceny therein.
|
|||||
| People v. Sugarman, No. B148414.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compulsory blood test without a warrant did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, where there was a prompt need for the testing and defendant had frustrated the arresting officer's attempt to conduct a breath analyzer test.
|
|||||
| Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court, No. B151669.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Home Owners' Loan Act preempted state law claims premised on the theory that the bank's practice of charging pre-closing interest on home loans was unlawful.
|
|||||
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. |
