 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Choong, No. B123246.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A law firm has standing to appeal a monetary sanction imposed on one of its associates. Furthermore, imposing a monetary sanction for not paying a previous monetary sanction was not an abuse of discretion
|
|||||
| Medina v. Superior Court, No. B139098.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 10-day grace period, which allowed a court to trail a trial, extended from the agreed trial date where petitioner agreed to a statutory trailing period. Court could exercise jurisdiction over issue of public interest.
|
|||||
| Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo, No. S076239.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were not necessarily prevailing parties, and arbitrators' decision to not award attorney's fees to either party was upheld, even if the order could be described as legally erroneous.
|
|||||
| Moshonov v. Walsh, No. S076103.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disputed issue of contractual interpretation regarding attorney fees clause of purchase agreement was committed to adjudication by the arbitrator, so arbitrator's ruling was binding.
|
|||||
| Pac. Custom Pools v. Turner Constr. Co., No. B122853.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In subcontractor's action for breach of contract and foreclosure of mechanics liens, as an unlicensed contractor, plaintiff could not maintain an action for work performed under the contract.
|
|||||
| Util. Cost Management v. E. Bay Mun. Util. Dist., No. A087191.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for municipal utility district was affirmed because 120-day statute of limitations applied to action seeking refund of sums paid by school district for water and wastewater fees under San Marcos Legislation.
|
|||||
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. |
