 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Del Taco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B134955.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illegal worker who suffered disabling injury was not entitled to greater benefits than legal workers; employer was not obligated to provide vocational rehabilitation where worker could not legally return to modified work.
|
|||||
| Earley v. Superior Court, No. B134741.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As part of the class certification process, petitioners seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation were not required to give notice to potential class members of the right to "opt out."
|
|||||
| Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, No. E025975.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandate was issued directing trial court to set aside its order denying insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, as tort cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence could not be maintained.
|
|||||
| In re A.C., No. D033580.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Only subject of dependency petition could request redaction of petition. Sisters, not "subject" to petition, could not request removal of their names. Right to petition for release of file did not survive child's death.
|
|||||
| In re R.G., No. B126081.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School teacher, having been found to have sexually assaulted his daughters, challenged petition by school district to disclose information. Court found that certain confidentiality laws were not meant to protect adults.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. S078712.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a condemnation action, appellant was entitled to interest on its just compensation award dating back to time appellant first suffered appreciable damage to its property.
|
|||||
| People v. Bemore, No. S012762.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel depriving defendant of properly death-qualified jury, violating constitutional rights to due process and impartial jury, and right to reliable penalty determination, were rejected.
|
|||||
| People v. Waples, No. E023787.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 20, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of prior acts was properly admitted, because California Evidence Code provision creating exception to propensity rule for sex offenses was not unconstitutional, testimony by victim was more relevant than prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Union Pac. Corp. v. Wengert, No. A084875.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 21, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in holding appellant liable for 20 percent of settlement negotiated by respondents; only portion of settlement attributable to complainants' economic damages was subject to respondents' indemnity claim.
|
|||||
| Zee Medical Distrib. Ass'n v. Zee Medical, No. A086721.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 21, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Distribution agreements between distributor and corporation were deemed contracts with an express term of duration and were terminable only for cause.
|
|||||
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. |
