 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Monterey v. Banuelos, No. H019741. No. H019750. No. H019751. No. H019752.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit for child support arrearages, County was entitled to seek-work orders against derelict parents, as counties could enforce support obligation in the same manner as custodial parents, including enforcement via contempt.
|
|||||
| People v. Castenada, No. S069237.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's involvement with gang was more than nominal or passive. Evidence of crimes defendant committed, his contacts on previous occasions with gang, and his admissions by bragging to police officers showed he actively participated.
|
|||||
| People v. Escobar, No. A085837.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A first degree murder conviction was upheld, because there was no significant likelihood the jury returned a conviction based solely on evidence of uncharged acts of domestic violence.
|
|||||
| People v. Lucero, No. S012568.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second death sentence was affirmed; trial court did not commit prejudicial error in denying defendant's motion to modify death verdict, and death sentence was proportional to his moral culpability.
|
|||||
| People v. Nat'l Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co., Nos. E025091, E025094.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bail bond surety appealed summary judgments against it and challenged denial of motions to exonerate it from liability. Although trial court's orders exceeded jurisdiction, surety was estopped from challenging orders.
|
|||||
| People v. Valencia, No. B134135.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No legislative committee report on relevant sentencing enhancement statute suggested defendant, a murderer who intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury, could not be subject to 25-year-to-life enhanced sentence.
|
|||||
| Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B137562.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decisions resulted in a denial of due process; and respondent's assertion of reasonable reliance was not evidence sufficient to meet its burden to establish reasonable delay in the payment of the permanent disability allowance.
|
|||||
| Turner v. Martire, No. E026082.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 13, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court concluded that there was no evidence permitting inference that defendant tribal law enforcement officers' alleged tortious conduct was discretionary in nature, such that defendants were not entitled to tribal immunity.
|
|||||
| Dunkin v. Boskey, No. A087866.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To the extent that plaintiff sought damages for the loss of his paternity rights, recovery of "emotional harm" damages was precluded on public policy grounds, but he could recover damages under an unjust enrichment theory.
|
|||||
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. |
