 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Riverside v. Superior Court, E030454,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collective bargaining right bill for public safety employees violated constitutional provisions against private body interference in the financial affairs of local agencies and a county's authority to determine the compensation of its employees.
|
|||||
| Great W. Shows v. County of L.A., No. S091547.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 22, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State law regulating the sale of firearms and gun shows did not preempt county ordinance prohibiting gun and ammunition sales on county property; county could regulate firearms sales on its property located in a city within the county's borders.
|
|||||
| Nordyke v. King, No. S091549.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 22, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In answering a certified question, the Alameda County ordinance making it a misdemeanor to bring onto or possess on county property a firearm was not preempted by California State law.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, E030384,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding of a defendant's absolute inability to control his behavior was not constitutionally required in order to commit defendant under the Sexually Violent Predators Act.
|
|||||
| Szetela v. Discover Bank, No. G029323.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 22, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The bank's cardholder agreement was unconscionable, violated public policy, and was unenforceable to the extent that it prohibited class actions and a writ of mandate was issued directing the superior court to strike the prohibition.
|
|||||
| Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., D036326,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Tamika T., No. B152626.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not deny due process by requiring a mother to make an offer of proof before conducting a contested hearing on the issue of whether she could discharge her burden of establishing a statutory exception to termination of parental rights.
|
|||||
| Parrish v. Superior Court, C039165,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People ex rel. City of Willits v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, No. A094534.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under California law, an injured person who had secured a judgment in an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage could bring an action against the insurer on the policy.
|
|||||
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. |
