 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen, No. S083934.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer defending a personal injury suit under a reservation of rights could recover settlement payments made over the objection of the insureds when the underlying claims were not covered under the policy.
|
|||||
| Clayton-Brame v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services, No. B136679,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to make a prima facie case for discrimination or to show that county's assertion of legitimate reason was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Hassoon v. Shamieh, No. A091760.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of prior similar incidents of violence at grocery meant shooting of customer was not foreseeable. Thus, storeowner and employee owed no duty of care to customer to protect him against such an event, and thus had no liability in tort.
|
|||||
| In re Nada R., No. G027548, No. G027698.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Saudi Arabian father divorced American mother and got custody of children without notice to mother, but trial court later awarded mother custody, court had jurisdiction to conduct dependency proceeding under UCCJEA.
|
|||||
| Marin Storage & Trucking v. Benco Contractor & Eng'g, No. A090915.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a commercial context, a contractual indemnification clause did not shock the conscience and thus was not substantively unconscionable, such that a crane company could enforce a clause against a contractor.
|
|||||
| People v. Franz, No. C034462.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terroristic threat conviction upheld. Although statute excluded throat slashing gesture, the sound "sh" was a verbal statement. Enhancement reversed, as State did not allege comparable counterfeiting statutes to his prior federal offense.
|
|||||
| People v. Herrera, No. B139597.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minimum sentence of gang activity enhancement sentencing statute, a voter initiative, could not be reduced by legislatively enacted sentencing statute. Defendants received presentence credits for time served but not presentence conduct credits.
|
|||||
| Merritt v. City of Pleasanton, No. A089834.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The electorate had referendum power, coextensive with the legislative power of the city, to make zoning decisions by initiative. Such decisions reasonably included the decision to prezone or the decision not to prezone.
|
|||||
| Otto v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., No. B141388.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A summary of conference memorandum constituted punitive action against a campus police officer where it contained adverse comments that could have led to punitive action; therefore the memorandum warranted an administrative appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
