 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar, No. B130244.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment upholding defendant city's redevelopment plan was reversed with instructions to invalidate the plan, as record did not support finding the project area was blighted, as required by statute.
|
|||||
| Bonta v. Baker, D033234,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State health service agency action to recover Medic-Cal program monies from trust estate and individual distributees was not timely filed because service of notice of rejection commenced the 90-day statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Marin, No. B128650.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment dismissing doctor as defendant in malpractice suit was reversed. Defendant was timely added to suit since plaintiff's amendment to complaint was filed within 90 days of notice of intent to sue.
|
|||||
| In re Rosenkrantz, No. B132370. No. B138635.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Board of Prison Terms did not cite a single piece of evidence to support its unsuitability findings, it could not stand. Board was order to schedule new hearing and to render new determination in accordance with law.
|
|||||
| Mola Dev. Corp. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Bd., No. G022200.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's judgment was affirmed; defendant applied wrong methodology in subtracting cleanup cost of contaminated property and adding back in expected third-party contributions. Assessment should have reflected cost of cure.
|
|||||
| People v. Guzman, No. G024131.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's remarks about defendant's failure to present exculpatory evidence invited the jury to consider defendant's failure to testify as proof of his guilt and violated his constitutional right to remain silent.
|
|||||
| People v. Paz, No. F030424.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A reasonable, good faith mistake about the age of a 14 or 15-year-old victim is not a defense to a charge of lewd or lascivious acts upon 14-year-old under California statute. Defendant's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Rodriguez, No. B126896.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked any discretion to avoid imposition of a parole revocation fine under the California Penal Code if the restitution fine was imposed, unauthorized sentence could be corrected in first instance on appeal.
|
|||||
| Pm & R Assocs. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. F032156.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation board's decision that physician's use of medical assistants to render adjunct physical therapy services was illegal per se and not reimbursable was annulled and remanded to address standard of care.
|
|||||
| Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., No. A087546.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stockholder's claim that brokerage violated its duty by not executing customer orders for stock sales in a timely manner was not preempted by federal securities law, which acted to supplement state unfair competition laws.
|
|||||
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. |
