 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Jesusa V., B151885,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An incarcerated parent had a due process right to be present at his child's jurisdictional hearing.
|
|||||
| Jersey v. John Muir Medical Ctr., No. A093521.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer, a hospital that terminated an at-will employee for refusing to dismiss a personal injury action against a former patient who had assaulted the employee during the course of her employment, did not violate a fundamental public policy.
|
|||||
| Patel v. S. Cal. Water Co., No. G023360.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Actions of wireless companies in regularly driving their trucks over property owners' land to install telecommunications equipment constituted a mere trespass rather than acts sufficient to establish a claim for inverse condemnation.
|
|||||
| People v. Shaw, No. D037859.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a hole used as a drug cache in a back yard which was a common area open to all occupants of a multi-unit building.
|
|||||
| Saratoga Fire Protection Dist. v. Hackett, No. H022553.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where fire district condemned property owner's building to use as a firefighter's residence, trial court erred in excluding owner's evidence of fair market value of property at time of trial and required a reversal of judgment.
|
|||||
| Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp., No. A094062.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court should have granted radio broadcaster's special motion to strike television program contestant's defamation suit, where none of the statements during a radio program made about contestant constituted actionable statements of fact.
|
|||||
| Banks v. Hathaway, No. B148305.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in vacating an award of sanctions to defendant after it sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend; sustaining of the demurrer did not eviscerate defendant's right to seek sanctions.
|
|||||
| People v. Massicot, No. D035591.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for indecent exposure was not supported by substantial evidence; defendant was not nude, and the evidence did not suggest he intended to direct public attention to his genitals.
|
|||||
| Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, No. D037347.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Family Leave Act did not immunize an at-will employee from employment termination or give her greater rights than other employees terminated in a company-wide reduction in work force implemented during her family leave of absence.
|
|||||
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. |
