 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burris v. Superior Court, G028636,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a misdemeanor complaint did not bar a felony prosecution.
|
|||||
| Catalina Invs. v. Jones, No. B150142.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A dissolved corporation lacked the capacity to seek reinstatement by means of filing a certificate of revocation of dissolution with the Secretary of State.
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. Universal Underwriters, No. D038121.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insured sued insurer for breach of a duty to defend insured in underlying action, there was absence of potential for coverage under relevant insurance policies, and therefore insurer had no duty to defend the insured in underlying action.
|
|||||
| Estate of Hoffman, No. B146383.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that heirs' proposed petition to remove executors from handling estate would be a contest within meaning of no-contest clause in will, since statute proclaimed that such a petition did not violate no-contest clause.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Stewart, No. A095941.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that defendants' proof of acceptance of plaintiff's settlement offer was filed after plaintiff's attempted revocation of the offer did not affect the validity of the acceptance.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of De Guigne, No. A091882.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no abuse of discretion in setting child support amounts that exceeded husband's total monthly income, as there were special circumstances that permitted deviation from child support guidelines.
|
|||||
| Jackson Plaza Homeowners Assn. v. Alcal Roofing & Insulation, A091787,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a construction defects action, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment; there was a triable issue of fact on whether the 10-year limitations period was subject to equitable tolling for repairs.
|
|||||
| McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., No. A095447.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendant manufacturers was affirmed in a wrongful death action because plaintiff family was unable to prove that the decedent was exposed to any of the manufacturers' asbestos products.
|
|||||
| People v. Duran, No. B147984.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants convicted for robberies in connection with a criminal street gang were properly sentenced in according with statutory enhancements.
|
|||||
| People v. Fryman, H020743,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Drug possession defendant's 25 to life sentence was remanded for resentencing under California Substance Abuse and Criminal Prevention Act of 2000. He was convicted before July 1, 2001, but prospective-only provision was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
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. |
