 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Ventura v. Gonzales, No. B141930.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, May 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an adoption matter, the judgment providing for child support was modified; the order terminating parental rights severed the parent-child relationship and deprived the court of the authority to make an award of child support.
|
|||||
| In re Nicholas B., No. H020404.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's order adjudging child a dependent child was reversed, where allegations in the dependency petition failed to allege essential facts establishing juvenile court jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| People v. Cleveland, No. S078537.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in excusing a juror for allegedly failing to deliberate. Juror may have employed faulty logic, but it could not properly be said that he refused to deliberate.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, No. S066106.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juror was properly dismissed when he stated his objection to the law regarding unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and expressly confirmed his unwillingness to abide by his oath to follow the trial court's instructions.
|
|||||
| Young v. Raley's, Inc., C033172,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For state constitutional free speech purposes, privately owned freestanding supermarket which had not assumed role of a town center was permitted to exclude from its property solicitors of signatures for initiative petitions.
|
|||||
| In re John S., No. C035458.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not err in interpreting statute so as to find father's status as registered sex offender constituted prima facie showing that minor son came within purview of statute for purposes of determining dependency.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. B143859.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where homeowner filed motion for costs and fees, deadline for filing it was the one which focused on the date the court entered order enforcing procedural time limit, not date the time limit was raised in bank's opposition.
|
|||||
| Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands, No. E027170.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly dismissed claim for religious discrimination; plaintiff made no showing of anti-Semitic bias in university's decision to deny tenure, or that reasons given were a pretext for discriminatory animus.
|
|||||
| Valdez v. Clayton Industries, Inc., B139582,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were triable issues about whether male plaintiff suffered unwelcome sexual harassment from his male supervisor because of his sex and whether his discharge was retaliatory; claim was not time-barred, so summary judgment was error.
|
|||||
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. |
