 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, No. E025557.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandate was granted directing trial court to grant insurer's summary judgment motion against insured, as policy contained provision allowing insurer to settle claims either with insured or car's owner.
|
|||||
| Lear v. Bd. of Ret., No. D032381.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants did not have to place plaintiffs, former employees of another county, into their prior retirement class. Statutory reciprocal retirement plan between counties did not confer placement into specific retirement tier.
|
|||||
| Ml Direct v. Tig Specialty Ins. Co., No. B130852.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's summary judgment was affirmed because the class action arose from a proceeding that was pending as of March 11, 1997, the exclusion was not ambiguous and it applied to the class action.
|
|||||
| People v. McCoy, C024654,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 17, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imperfect self-defense jury instructions erroneously required fear of imminent harm appearing to be such to a reasonable person (an objective test), rather than proper standard of fear of imminent harm (a subjective test).
|
|||||
| Sterling Builders v. United Nat. Ins. Co., No. G021514.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court concluded that defendant insurance company did not have duty to defend under clause in applicable policy because there had to be occupation of real property before invasion of a private right of occupancy occurred.
|
|||||
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. |
