 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Sainez, No. A083523.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Civil penalty of $ 663,000 assessed against rental property owners under municipal housing code was justified, where owners ignored or disobeyed orders to abate or rectify substandard housing conditions.
|
|||||
| People v. Brown, No. A083896.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probative value of evidence of prior acts of violence towards other girlfriends in assault case was not substantially outweighed by danger of undue prejudice since evidence was not inflammatory or remote.
|
|||||
| People v. Engelman, D032699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error to give a jury instruction regarding the jury's obligation to advise the court if another juror expressed an intention to disregard the law. The trial court was not required to instruct jurors about the power to nullify.
|
|||||
| People v. Mar, F028945,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's request to remove electronic stun belt while testifying did not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination because there was a manifest need for restraint and the security risks were not reduced.
|
|||||
| Pardee Constr. Co. v. Ins. Co. of the W., No. D031946.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 2, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The insurers owed the general contractor a duty to defend because the subcontractors had completed operations coverage and there was no policy language excluding such coverage.
|
|||||
| Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exch., No. B121194.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the federal court of the first instance made its judgment on alternative grounds and the reviewing federal court affirmed on only one ground, declining to consider the other, the second ground was not conclusively established.
|
|||||
| People v. Mancebo, F028473,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 3, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although state's petition for rehearing regarding sentencing was denied, the court remanded for resentencing in light of errors in sentencing discussed in opinion.
|
|||||
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. |
