 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aloha Pac. v. Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, No. B130555.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California Insurance Guarantee Association was not barred from contesting whether third-party claimant's claim was within coverage of insolvent insurer's policy, where claimant obtained judgment against insurer.
|
|||||
| Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, No. C031330. No. C032253.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment finding that easement was acquired for use of road along side of irrigation canal through implied dedication of a public easement affirmed. The public use was sufficient to convey to landowner that it was adverse.
|
|||||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of L.A., No. B130247.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In challenge to city ordinance imposing a business tax, appellant's claim was time-barred by 90-day statute of limitations, imposed fee had been repealed, and court lacked jurisdiction to order refunds for claims not filed.
|
|||||
| Lund v. Bally's Aerobic Plus, No. B127903.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of nonsuit dismissing appellant's personal injury suit against fitness club was affirmed. The waiver and release form signed by appellant clearly and unambiguously barred appellant's claims.
|
|||||
| People v. Duncan, No. B130673.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellee defendant was incompetent at the time of his preliminary hearing, incarceration was unlawful and appellant was entitled to have criminal proceedings against him dismissed; lower court decision was affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Leonard, No. C027404.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's unhappiness with his appointed counsel was not based on counsel's competence as an attorney; thus, the trial court properly denied defendant's request for appointment of a new attorney on the first day of trial.
|
|||||
| Schmier v. Supreme Court, No. A085177.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant lacked standing to bring suit to compel publication of all California intermediate appellate court decisions and could not state a viable cause of action.
|
|||||
| Shade Foods v. Innovative Prods. Sales & Mktg., No. A080316.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Each defendant insurer was fully liable for plaintiff's and cross-complainant's losses up to policy limits; liability should have been allocated severally among defendants pursuant to the "other insurance" clause in policies.
|
|||||
| Transworld Sys. v. County of Sonoma, No. A085672.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff collection service used its forms only to send letters to debtors at the direction of its customers, the letters were exempt business property because they were delivered incidental to the rendition of the service.
|
|||||
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. |
