 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Locks, No. B124959.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held that petitioner inmate who was adjudged insane was not entitled to habeas relief while being treated for continuing insanity, but was entitled to petition for hearing to determine competence.
|
|||||
| Leone v. Medical Bd., No. S065485.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate jurisdiction clause of the California Constitution did not require the legislature to provide for direct appeals in all cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior courts, it permit some variation.
|
|||||
| People v. Rizo, No. S077785.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The immigration or citizenship status of the intended recipient is not an element of the crime of providing false documents to conceal the true citizenship or resident alien status of another person.
|
|||||
| Small v. Hall's Furniture Defined Benefit Pension Plan, No. B128437.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to dismiss their appeal without being required to pay plaintiffs' costs was granted, as no purpose would have been served by defendants pursuing the appeal.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Cmty. Ass'n, No. G017633.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A condominium association was entitled to the attorney-client privilege for legal materials relating to its construction defect lawsuit against a developer, as the condominium owners were not clients who hired the attorney.
|
|||||
| Cimarusti v. Superior Court, No. B136762.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners' requests for juvenile records were properly denied where they were contained within an inseparable master file and only a presiding juvenile court judge could determine which records could be disclosed.
|
|||||
| Cmty. Care & Rehab. Ctr. v. Superior Court, No. E025228.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the real parties interest asserted that petitioner was remiss in providing health care services, it was clear that statute applied to action; statute did not preclude plaintiff's recovery of punitive damages.
|
|||||
| People v. Cornelius, D027176,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the three-strike sentence enhancement law it was proper to triple the indeterminate 25 years to life sentence under the one-strike enhancement law, as the greatest minimum term, to obtain 75 years to life sentence.
|
|||||
| Peters v. Superior Court, No. B135983.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 5, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of stale examinations undermined intent of the Sexually Violent Predators Act; Department of Mental Health was obliged to appoint two additional independent evaluators to examine petitioner.
|
|||||
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. |
