 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| E. v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am., No. C033482.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a public works contract, surety had no right to recover underpaid wages and penalties; contractor forfeited its right to payment by engaging in wrongful conduct in connection with the project.
|
|||||
| L.A. County Dep't of Children & Fam. Servs. v. Superior Court, No. B140917.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court acted in excess of its authority by placing two dependent children with their maternal great-uncle who had history of narcotics-related criminal convictions in contravention of statute prohibiting such placement.
|
|||||
| People v. Zepeda, No. H020849.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conviction for first degree murder was affirmed where the trial court did not err in evidence admission or jury instructions, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was not cruel and unusual punishment.
|
|||||
| Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, No. B136617.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where respondent employee signed employee handbook, but did not sign separate provision for binding arbitration in the handbook, there was no agreement between the parties and motion to compel arbitration was denied.
|
|||||
| Save the Sunset Strip Coalition v. City of W. Hollywood, No. B143615.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to create a cul-de-sac on a one-block long residential street, the city was not required to find that the street was "no longer needed for vehicular traffic."
|
|||||
| Traverso v. Dep't of Transp., No. A087456.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff had no cause of action for denial of billboard permits. Since time for challenging revocations had passed, he was in the position of any new permit applicant. In that posture, he was not entitled to the permits.
|
|||||
| Eller Media Co. v. City of L.A., No. B142004.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted redevelopment agency's demurrer to suit requesting to construct billboards deemed approved under permit streamlining act where time period for approval did not run in absence of environmental impact report.
|
|||||
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. |
