 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conservatorship of Gregory, Nos. C030074, C030733.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in using administrative regulations to assist the jury in determining whether defendants' conduct involved physical abuse or neglect, fraud, or malice within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act.
|
|||||
| Griego v. Superior Court, No. B138334.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State was bound by its agreement with petitioner to grant transactional immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for his deposition testimony in civil proceeding to declare him a sexually violent predator.
|
|||||
| In re Matthew Z., No. D034097.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was not required to make a second detriment finding under the Indian Child Welfare Act after previously making such determination before terminating father's rights to his child.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Moore, No. B126355.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in excluding testimony of plaintiff's expert beyond opinions he expressed in his deposition since he said those were his only opinions and if he had others he would notify defense counsel.
|
|||||
| People v. Rells, No. S080451.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preponderance of the evidence standard was determined to be the proper standard for defendant to prove he remained incompetent at his recovery of competence hearing; burden was properly on defendant to make such proof.
|
|||||
| Provost v. Superior Court, B137690,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The procedure for requesting publication of unpublished opinions was inapplicable to an order summarily denying a mandate petition where no order to show cause or alternative writ had been issued and oral argument had not been held.
|
|||||
| Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc, No. A086999.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court held that triable issues of fact existed as to whether defendant fulfilled its duty to reasonably accommodate plaintiff, thus precluding summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim.
|
|||||
| Haynie v. Superior Court, B137707,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in barring disclosure of public records created before or during police stop of requester's van, since prospect of enforcement proceedings were not concrete and definite when records were prepared.
|
|||||
| People v. Taylor, B128957,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 2, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cocaine possession conviction was affirmed, but sentence reversed and remanded to reconsider motion to dismiss prior strike allegations under "three strikes" law; sentencing judge considered improper factors in denying motion.
|
|||||
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. |
