 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Apt. Ass'n v. City of Fremont, No. A095016.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly sustained city's demurrer to a suit brought by apartment association alleging that city's fire sprinkler ordinances, which were adopted outside 180-day period set out in statute, were not timely adopted and were void.
|
|||||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Roseville, No. C036295.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's "in-lieu franchise fee" of four percent it imposed on municipal utilities' annual budgets, and which was paid by utility ratepayers, violated California Constitution, as the fee did not reasonably represent the cost of providing service.
|
|||||
| In re Tanyann W., No. F038969.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 14-year-old girl was not a 7-year-old child's sibling for purposes of the reunification services statute, since they had no parents in common.
|
|||||
| People v. Ward, No. E030271.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly extended defendant's original commitment as a sexually violent predator for an additional two years; trial court did not lose jurisdiction after defendant's original commitment expired.
|
|||||
| Rancho Solano Master Ass'n v. Amos & Andrews, No. A088304, No. A088514.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By satisfying a judgment in favor of a developer, construction company waived its right to appeal liability; satisfaction did not resurrect an indemnity claim the construction company had against homebuilders.
|
|||||
| Childrens Hosp. v. Bonta, No. A094061.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees awarded to 11 hospitals in neighbor states in suit against California Medi-Cal agency over new, more discriminatory, reimbursement scheme was mostly upheld. Dormant Commerce Clause was violated.
|
|||||
| In re Raphael P., No. A095206.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of presumed father status in proceedings concerning child was reversed, even though genetics test excluded teen respondent as father. No one else was seeking such status. Biology did not control. He cared for child.
|
|||||
| People v. Cuccia, No. G028341.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was found guilty of selling unregistered securities, misrepresenting a security, and attempted grand theft, it was error to require him to testify out of order or rest his case and to not let him testify on surrebuttal.
|
|||||
| People v. Garcia, No. F034831.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a memorandum opinion, the appellate court vacated defendant's sentence as to count 8, remanded the matter for resentencing on that count alone, and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.
|
|||||
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. |
