 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. A091134.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interim attorney fees award was reversed in California labor law claim, where it was not reasonable to interpret the applicable state statute as authorizing interim payment of fees in the absence of a clear legislative intent.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Blatt, No. B135467.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retrospective application of shortened limitations period was permissible where appellant had constructive notice of the statute of limitations and had a reasonable time to avail himself of his remedy before the statute cut off his rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Epps, No. S082110.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to give defendant a jury trial of prior conviction allegations was harmless error, as defendant did not show a reasonable probability the error affected the result.
|
|||||
| People v. Morales, No. S059461.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's alleged misstatement of the law did not require reversal where any misstatement of the law merely amounted to prosecutorial misconduct during argument, rather than trial and resolution on an improper legal basis.
|
|||||
| People v. Westlund, No. F032185.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was clear jury would have found defendant guilty of possession of a silencer for firearms, even if it had been properly instructed that it had to find he knew or should have known of the characteristics of the silencer.
|
|||||
| Randall v. Scovis, D036508,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendants' alleged wrongdoing was conduct, rather than communicative in nature, the statutory litigation privilege was not applicable for defendants with respect to plaintiff's statutory invasion of privacy claim.
|
|||||
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. |
