 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gilliland v. Medical Bd., No. A091298.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Medical board did not have statutory authority to assess and impose civil penalty against chief physician and medical facility administrator for filing a late report of another doctor's suspension and termination.
|
|||||
| People v. Torres, No. S079575.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to commit a sexually violent predator, the trier of fact was not required to make a finding that the defendant's prior sexual crimes involved predatory acts.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, H018775,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded for a determination of whether employee was unsuccessful in his appeal from labor commissioner's decision, in which the trial court awarded the same relief except it added interest on his non-wage claims.
|
|||||
| TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B144333.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the respondent court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of plaintiff's claims, it could not order transfer of the matter to another court, and the petition for writ of mandamus preventing the transfer was granted.
|
|||||
| Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., H020625,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 21, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the class of consumers fairly represented nationwide consumers, state law provided an adequate remedy, and the method and contents of the settlement agreement were sufficient, class action settlement was affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
