 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Marriage of Armato, No. B141503.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly enforced an agreement modifying husband's child support obligations. Dissolution action remained pending for purposes of child support; thus respondent was not required to file breach of contract claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Walker, D035890,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not determine issues before it in a trial on the truth of the prior conviction, but instead, improperly invalidated a prior conviction on constitutional grounds without following the Sumstine procedures.
|
|||||
| Alexander v. Blue Cross of Cal., No. A089824.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrator had certain discretion in ruling on discovery motions and was not required to treat a request for admission as deemed admitted, even if trial court would have been required to do so in the same circumstances.
|
|||||
| Lo v. Jensen, No. B142193.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where experienced property buyers agreed to join together to buy condo at foreclosure sale, by joining together, buyers foreclosed competition and restrained bidding and violated law. As a result, court could set aside sale.
|
|||||
| McCall v. Pacificare of Cal., No. S082236.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Medicare beneficiary enrolled in HMO and was denied referral to see lung specialist. He sued, raising tort claims. Since those claims did not fall within Medicare's review provisions, court erred in granting HMO's demurrers.
|
|||||
| People v. Bush, No. C035985.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Information sent by dispatcher regarding defendant's history of violence was not unreasonably stale and provided specific and articulable facts which reasonably warranted police officer in believing defendant was dangerous.
|
|||||
| People v. Sparks, D034981,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 3, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to instruct jury that burglary was committed by forming intent to rape after entry into a room of a house but before entry into another room. It was error to not instruct jury on use of pillow as a deadly weapon.
|
|||||
| In re Taylor, No. F036604.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas relief was denied to petitioner since it was not required as a matter of constitutional law that the trial court have submitted the fact of defendant's prior convictions to jury for purposes of three strikes provision.
|
|||||
| People v. Alvarez, No. E026734.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for murder, assault with a firearm, and resisting a peace officer was affirmed; admission of gang evidence and firearm enhancement did not violate his equal protection rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Hubbart, No. H021322.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's finding of defendant to be a sexually violent predator within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predator Act was affirmed. The act did not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
|
|||||
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. |
