 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arden Carmichael v. County of Sacramento, No. C030134.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the California Constitution, a county fee imposed on nonprofit organizations based upon gross receipts of bingo games was unconstitutional. Organizations could pay attorney fees from bingo proceeds.
|
|||||
| Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, No. E024929.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of opposition to motion for summary judgment was not proper grounds for grant of summary judgment; summary judgment was only proper if movant met its initial burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, F031741,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deceased had a cause of action for negligent hiring against the hirer of the independent contractor because the cause of action was direct, arising from the hirer's personal and independent failure to use care.
|
|||||
| Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville, No. A078223.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent presented competent evidence that it was experiencing a severe budgetary shortfall. Appellant failed to show that her position was eliminated based on any other reason besides poor performance and budgetary cuts.
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, B129442,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to impose additional restitution fine once restitution fine was assessed involved pure question of law that could be resolved on appeal without reference to particular facts before trial court.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (baez), No. H019769.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable inferences supported accused's discriminatory prosecution claim, thus, under the abuse of discretion standard of review, all inferences, drawn in favor of respondent's ruling, were sufficient to merit discovery.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, No. H018413.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who introduced his own non-Mirandized statement took risk that it would be basis for inferring wrongdoing if found to be false and additional evidence corroborated his guilt. Jury instruction on inference was proper.
|
|||||
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. |
