 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Shapiro v. San Diego City Council, No. D037323.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The City Counsel of San Diego, California was required, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, to post an agenda describing each item of business discussed in closed sessions involving a large redevelopment project to create a baseball ballpark.
|
|||||
| Swanson v. St. John's Reg'l Medical Ctr., No. B148128.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 5, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court could not use unfair competition law to condemn hospital liens; the Hospital Lien Act created a statutory lien and did not require that the patient owe the hospital a debt.
|
|||||
| Schroeder v. Irvine City Council, No. D038976.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California's anti-SLAPP statute was upheld against constitutional challenges; the measure sought to achieve a substantial governmental interest that was unrelated to the suppression of the exercise of First Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| West v. Bechtel Corp., No. A089492.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An American engineer employed in Saudi Arabia failed to allege a successful employment discrimination suit; while substantial evidence showed the Royal Commission was biased against him due to age, that bias could not be imputed to his employer.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Md. Casualty Co., No. S087346.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action, a defending insurer could not be bound to a court-approved settlement to which it had not agreed, and in which it had not participated.
|
|||||
| Heenan v. Sobati, No. G028961.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court judge, who purported to sit as a contract arbitrator in a dispute between homeowners and a building contractor, did not conduct an arbitration, rather he conducted a bench trial in which the parties waived their right of appeal.
|
|||||
| Maples v. Kern County Assessment Appeals Bd., No. F035361.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was reasonable to incorporate the effective interest rate of a federally subsidized loan made to the operator of a low income housing project in the assessment of that property, rather than the prevailing commercial interest rate.
|
|||||
| People v. Moody, No. C037797.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing judgment was modified to reflect an enhancement term on a count of 3 years and 4 months, with the aggregate term being 38 years in state prison; defendant's aggregate term was reduced from 44 years, 8 months to 38 years.
|
|||||
| Summit Fin. Holdings v. Cont'l Lawyers Title Co., No. S097344.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Holding company could not bring a negligence action arising from a refinance transaction; as a stranger to the escrow agreement, the holding company was not owed a duty of care by the title company.
|
|||||
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. |
