 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Hunter, C034939,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the claimed error of denying defendant's discovery motion did not go to the legality of the proceedings, and defendant failed to move to suppress the evidence, his challenge was not cognizable on appeal.
|
|||||
| People v. Masters, No. C038004.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court complied with statutory duty by examining defendant's criminal record, probation, and current charges in determining that defendant's pattern of criminality made him an unfit candidate for a California Rehabilitation Center referral.
|
|||||
| People v. McGarry, No. C037114.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 28, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Monetary credits earned by defendant must be applied to fines and penalty assessments on a proportional basis. A base fine was "collected" by the courts, even if it was satisfied by monetary credits a defendant earned through custody.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. A095914.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, February 28, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents were not dependents of deceased employee, where fact that the parent's could maintain their living standard after the employee's death demonstrated that they were not financially dependent upon him.
|
|||||
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. |
