 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bame v. City of Del Mar, No. D034206, No. D034354.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local ordinance taxing state fairground district and its contractors violated district's sovereignty, and therefore was unenforceable; promoter's action for refund of taxes paid under ordinance was reinstated.
|
|||||
| Curle v. Superior Court, No. S080322.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeal lacked authority to hear disqualified judge's appeal. "Parties to the proceeding" in statute authorizing appeal were litigants in underlying action--and not the judge disqualified from presiding over the action.
|
|||||
| In re Cervera, No. S075310.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court did not err by denying inmate's habeas corpus petition. Three Strikes law did not authorize or allow inmate to be awarded penal code credits against a mandatory indeterminate term of life imprisonment.
|
|||||
| People v. Carlisle, No. B137310.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to grant appellant's consistent, timely, and unequivocal requests for self-representation constituted reversible error.
|
|||||
| Spielholz v. Superior Court, No. B131655.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Monetary damages claim for wireless communications provider's alleged false advertising was not preempted by federal communications statute, since it did not involve regulation of rates and posed no irreconcilable conflict with federal law.
|
|||||
| Hightower v. Superior Court, No. B143841.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A partial final award issued by an arbitrator in an underlying shareholder's agreement dispute was proper where there was a link between the relief granted in the award and the terms of the shareholder's agreement.
|
|||||
| Whitmore Union Elementary School Dist. v. County of Shasta, C031359,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County treasurer who failed to determine whether school district's money was surplus and secure its consent for investment lacked discretion to invest money. Investment was not subject to discretionary immunity provided by Tort Claims Act.
|
|||||
| Holland v. Morse Diesel Internat., No. A088941.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 13, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An African American unlicensed contractor could pursue an action for racial discrimination during the performance of his contract, but could not seek damages for the defendant's failure to pay sums due under the contract.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzales, No. B137494.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 13, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for aiding and abetting a murder were affirmed where there was sufficient evidence, and it was unnecessary to prove their knowledge that the perpetrator was armed.
|
|||||
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. |
