 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benedict v. Danner Press, No. A088723.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's conduct had to have been a cause in fact of the entry of default, but the statutory provisions did not preclude relief when default was entered as a result of a combination of attorney and client fault.
|
|||||
| Bolter v. Superior Court, No. G027378.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration clauses requiring California franchisees to arbitrate any disputes in Utah were unconscionable and were severed from franchise agreements; "place and manner" terms were unduly oppressive under the circumstances.
|
|||||
| Calderon v. Superior Court, No. B143933.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Joinder laws could not be used to deny a criminal defendant's fundamental right to due process and a fair trial; forcing petitioner to be joined with codefendant in a trial based on an entirely separate episode was unduly prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Wallich's Ranch Co. v. Kern County Citrus Pest Control Dist., No. F032923.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A taxpayer's action challenging citrus pest control assessments was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the appropriate procedure to oppose the assessment was to challenge the district budget.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Shea, No. G026722.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred in entering a child support judgment based on a previous dissomaster calculation rather than recalculate the guideline child support after child's mother had moved from California to South Carolina.
|
|||||
| People v. Atkins, No. S082662.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of defendant's voluntary intoxication was inadmissible to show that defendant lacked the requisite mental state for arson.
|
|||||
| Coalition Advocating Legal Hous. Options v. City of Santa Monica, No. B135879.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, March 13, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City ordinance allowing "second units" in single-family residential zones, but limiting occupant of second unit to the property owner, a dependent, or a caregiver, violated constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection.
|
|||||
| In re Elizabeth G., No. H020724.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 13, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where minor was accessory after the fact to murder and attempted murder, counsel was not ineffective, since it was not reasonably probable court would have granted suppression motion as to warrantless entry of minor's home.
|
|||||
| People v. Protsman, D034285,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Murder conviction affirmed; court properly excluded evidence of positron emission tomography scan of appellant's brain, because the method was not accepted in diagnosing moderate or severe head trauma.
|
|||||
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. |
