 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Currie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. S085652.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amounts recoverable as wrongfully withheld payments of wages were damages, and once the obligation to pay retroactively was established, prejudgment interest properly accompanied a backpay award in order to make the employee whole.
|
|||||
| Del Cerro Mobile Estates v. Proffer, No. D036426.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When appellant voluntarily dismissed its suit, respondent was deemed to be the prevailing party under state statute; therefore, she was entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in defending against the nuisance action.
|
|||||
| Ketchum v. Moses, No. S077350.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contingent risk enhancement to strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) plaintiff's attorney fee award was not properly imposed where enhancement was made merely for the purpose of punishing the defendant.
|
|||||
| People v. Currie, A084426,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Munoz, No. B136458.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sequential designation of judges to review wiretap applications and orders was proper under the authorizing statute because the designation did not violate the statutory language or frustrate the legislative intent.
|
|||||
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. |
