 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Currie, No. A084426.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Underrepresentation of African-Americans in jury venires in relevant county resulted from race-neutral practices on part of county, such that it did not support a constitutional fair-cross-section requirement claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Health Labs. of N. Am., No. A089749.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where manufacturer sought to prevent prosecutor from filing action for misleading advertising, manufacturer could not use anti-SLAPP statute to strike amended complaint, because prosecutor's enforcement action was exempt.
|
|||||
| People v. Montoya, No. E027229.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mentally disordered offender provisions were not punitive in purpose or effect, and their procedural safeguards did not require the defendant to personally waive the right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Parmar, No. C032818.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding a Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency contract violated public policy. Record did not support disqualification of district attorney in complaint arising out of motel operations.
|
|||||
| People v. Valdez, C031612, C032849,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Willful endangerment conviction reversed because court misinstructed jury that required mental state element was criminal negligence instead of purposefully or intentionally causing or permitting child to be seriously endangered.
|
|||||
| Remsen v. Lavacot, No. G025009.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it reconsidered its interim order that beneficiaries of a trust were entitled to interest on their cash bequests and entered a new order that no interest was due.
|
|||||
| Rodas v. Spiegel, No. B141290.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims of fraud, interference with contract, and interference with business relations, which were based on testimony to contractor's licensing board in connection with complaint about contractor, failed. Testimony was immune from such claims.
|
|||||
| Sherwin-Williams Co. v. S. Coast Air Quality Management Dist., No. B131122.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Air quality management district properly adopted amended rules regulating volatile organic compounds in paint products; state air resources board's approval did not constitute state regulations for purposes of state APA.
|
|||||
| Sims v. Charness, No. B134267.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee agreement between two attorneys was not subject to the disciplinary rule prohibiting fee splitting because outside attorney was essentially functioning on the same basis as an employee of the law office.
|
|||||
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. |
