 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cal. Ass'n of Prof'l Scientists v. Dep't of Fish & Game, No. C023075, No. C023184.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Flat fee was constitutional under Cal. Const. even if it was not passed by 2/3rds majority of legislature since it was a regulatory fee; fee was legal where revenue received was less than regulation of environmental review.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Jurupa Unified Sch. Dist., No. E024110.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's Political Reform Act action against defendants, where trial court ordered plaintiff to post $ 25,000 security, but plaintiff failed to file any bond.
|
|||||
| Pang v. Beverly Hosp., No. B127999.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiff's action under Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act proper; purpose of the leave sought, to help plaintiff's elderly mother move from one home to another, did not qualify as leave to care for a parent.
|
|||||
| People v. Spence, C028033,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for rehearing was denied because the issue was not properly before the court because it was not raised in the trial court or in respondent's brief.
|
|||||
| Truck Ins. Exch. v. Unigard Ins. Co., No. B127813.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-insurer did not have to pay contribution to insurer, to cover the defense of a general contractor, where insurer did not notify co-insurer of the possibility of contribution.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. E025482.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no federal preemption of nuisance claim where railroad company harassed homeowners, state and local regulations did not interfere with interstate rail operations, and activity was not federally regulated.
|
|||||
| Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, E025064, E025163, E025181,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent trial court improperly certified "medical monitoring" and "punitive damages" class; each class member's entitlement to medical monitoring overwhelmed the common issues of fact. There was no community of interest.
|
|||||
| People v. Russo, F027481, F033159,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 11, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder need not be reversed due to instructional error; a trial court need not instruct the jury they must unanimously agree as to the overt act done in pursuance of a conspiracy.
|
|||||
| Small v. Superior Court, No. D034014.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in substituting its judgment for prison warden's in matters of prison safety, and misconstrued the necessary showing required to permit defendant to be shackles at pre-trial hearings.
|
|||||
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. |
