 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colarossi v. Coty Us, No. G027368.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find an employee was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, the appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of former employer.
|
|||||
| In re Randalynne G., Nos. E028904, E029176, E030039.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a guardianship matter, the juvenile court was not permitted to delegate to the department of social services its discretion to determine whether any visitation would occur.
|
|||||
| Kaplan v. Fairway Oaks Homeowners Ass'n, No. G026150.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners association was entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party in an action brought by homeowners to contest a directors election and enforce their proxy and cumulative voting rights under the association's bylaws.
|
|||||
| People v. Bruce G., No. C034403.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant convicted of three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 was entitled to mere probation. The defendant had no criminal history; in fact, he wrote a letter to the court expressing his remorse.
|
|||||
| People v. Cano, B152598,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to drug treatment probation where the record showed his probation violation was for failing a monthly drug test and the prosecutor had not specified that he was also charged with a non-drug related violation.
|
|||||
| People v. Level, No. B149442.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was precluded by waiver and estoppel from asserting her minority as a basis for challenging her prior adult robbery conviction; thus, the prior action could be used as a strike for sentence enhancement in her subsequent grand theft case.
|
|||||
| People v. Oates, E029354,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing enhancements imposed against defendant convicted of five counts of attempted premeditated murder, mayhem, and possession of a firearm by a felon were stricken; there was no finding by the jury that defendant personally fired the gun.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (turner), No. B156011.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not eligible for probation and drug treatment for his possession of cocaine conviction based upon his prior criminal history; he had been in prison custody during the five-year period immediately preceding the current drug offense.
|
|||||
| Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors, No. B145131.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, a gate repair company did not owe a duty to the subtenant to warn the owner of the property of design defects unrelated to the repairs.
|
|||||
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. |
