 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mendez v. Superior Court, No. B145701.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Coram nobis would not issue to correct a judgment based upon police officer's perjured testimony where neither the prosecuting authorities nor the court knew or had reason to know about the perjury at the time it occurred.
|
|||||
| Morton Eng'g & Constr. v. Patscheck, No. F033184.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action brought by subcontractor to recover money owed for its work, statutory penalty provision was recoverable in either a disciplinary action before licensing board or in a civil action filed by the subcontractor.
|
|||||
| People v. Bowers, No. C030938.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion by discharging a juror. Record did not show there was a demonstrable reality the juror was unable to perform as a juror, and the juror did not engage in serious and wrongful misconduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Gray, No. B142928.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defense counsel showed that prosecutor excluded every African-American male examined on voir dire, and showed there was no apparent reason to exclude them, court erred in allowing peremptory challenges to excuse jurors.
|
|||||
| Souders v. Philip Morris Inc., B141519,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment to the California Civil code eliminating tobacco companies' immunity from products liability actions was retroactively applied and necessary to serve the important state interest of protecting Californians' health.
|
|||||
| Epstein v. Hollywood Entm't Dist. II Business Improvement Dist., No. B134256.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City played a role in bringing entertainment district property owners association into existence, and the association was therefore subject to the open meeting requirements; preliminary injunction granted to plaintiff.
|
|||||
| In re Ian C., No. A090936.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of marijuana seized during search of juvenile was properly denied as detention of juvenile for curfew violation was permissible, and search incident thereto was proper. There was no difference between temporary custody and arrest.
|
|||||
| Robert L. v. Superior Court, G027381,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act included all gang-related offenses, not just wobblers. However, statute was a penalty provision rather than a crime. Demurrer was granted, but writ of prohibition was denied.
|
|||||
| Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. S086696.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disability coverage under veterans' home protection plan was not insurance subject to mandatory provisions of state insurance code, and misrepresentations concerning medical history could be used as a basis to deny coverage.
|
|||||
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. |
