 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alford v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No. F030847.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in statute prevented respondent from revoking appellant's driver's license, a more severe penalty than had been recommended by ALJ, even though respondent had adopted all of ALJ's proposed decision.
|
|||||
| County of Orange v. Superior Court, No. G023138.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandate was issued directing trial court to vacate its order allowing suspects in ongoing homicide investigation to review contents of investigative file, where trial court erred in breadth and timing of its order.
|
|||||
| Grossmont Healthcare Dist. v. San Diego Hospital Assn., D031994, D033461,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hoadley rule barred statute of limitations defense in action by public entity to recover possession of public property because interest in enforcing conflict of interest statutes outweighed interest in barring stale claims.
|
|||||
| Langan v. City of El Monte, No. B117069.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city employer could not designate a city official as trier of fact in a city employee's disability retirement benefits appeal hearing, rather, it was required to be conducted by city council or by an administrative law judge.
|
|||||
| People v. Felix, No. S071278.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had to impose the full term for enhancements attached to indeterminate terms. Straight life, and some number of years to life sentences were indeterminate sentences not subject to the Determinate Sentencing Act.
|
|||||
| People v. Ramsey, No. B128065.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mistake instruction was not necessary as statute did not require knowledge that concrete was a pollutant. Instruction as to meaning of point source not necessary where appellant admitted to dumping concrete by river.
|
|||||
| Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., C027848,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, March 30, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's claims for employer's discriminatory actions were not timely filed; continuing violation doctrine did not apply as no violations occurred within limitations period and discrimination was previously apparent.
|
|||||
| Hatch v. Superior Court, No. D032423.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute making it illegal to send materials with the intent of seducing a minor did not burden interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause and prohibited conduct rather than free speech.
|
|||||
| Valencia v. Michaud, A083888,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, landlord was in possession of sufficient information about attacker to make conduct foreseeable, thereby creating duty to exercise reasonable care to remove attacker from property.
|
|||||
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. |
