 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ecker v. Raging Waters Group, No. B141916.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonsuit of amusement park visitor's malicious prosecution suit against part for detention and call to police after he was surreptitiously videotaping boys was upheld. Nonsuit of other tort claims was reversed as park may have acted unreasonably.
|
|||||
| People v. Brewer, No. A090565.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While court relied on wrong section of DNA statute to order defendant to provide blood and saliva samples as part of probation, the error was harmless, since another part of the statute gave the court the authority to do so.
|
|||||
| People v. Weise, D034948,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate erred in suppressing evidence obtained when police entered a residence to check on the welfare of occupants; officers were confronted with an exigent circumstances, justifying their entry into the residence.
|
|||||
| Ratcliff Architects v. Vanir Constr. Management, No. A089533.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sustained demurrers by construction project managers to architectural firm's claims. Even assuming firm was school district's agent, firm had no right to enforce contract's indemnification provisions.
|
|||||
| Sanwa Bank Cal. v. Chang, No. B139852.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As husband never listed couple's residence, which was community property, as an asset of his bankruptcy estate, the debt owed on the residence was not discharged as to appellant, even though husband was discharged from bankruptcy.
|
|||||
| Valentino v. Franchise Tax Bd., No. D036034.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that taxpayers were not residents of the state, they were still required to report gross income from sources within the state, i.e., income from stock they owned in corporation doing business in the state.
|
|||||
| City of Vernon v. Public Utils. Com, No. B131559.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public Utilities Commission's ruling that railyard's expansion project did not require an environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Jefferson v. Department of Youth Authority, E026915,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground that plaintiff's sex discrimination claim was barred by a workers' compensation compromise and a general release of all claims.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, E025710, E025832, E026853,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because lack of probable cause was essential element of malicious prosecution action, and defendants had probable cause to bring underlying claim, no malicious prosecution action could be predicated on underlying claim.
|
|||||
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. |
