 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| CABINDA LLC v. SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BD., B133077,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 11, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rent control regulations were preempted by state law where legislature's comprehensive treatment indicated intent to fully occupy field and legislature did not preserve to local government authority to oversee rate increases.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Newman, No. B132850.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife was entitled to have issue of spousal support litigated in California court despite not challenging Georgia court's jurisdiction over marriage dissolution because that proceeding did not involve spousal support issues.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, No. S053888.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospital with religious affiliation was exempt, under religious-entity exemption of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, from former employee's claim of wrongful termination based on age discrimination.
|
|||||
| Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A085462.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by ordering county to refund taxes based on property values submitted to assessment appeals board. Tax refund should have been calculated based on property values submitted in plaintiffs' claim for refund.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Riley), F034275,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 11, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New recommitment petition for previously adjudged sexually violent predator required only one supporting psychological evaluation, so trial court erred in dismissing petition as invalid without two evaluations.
|
|||||
| Torres v. Superior Court, No. B136652.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To be entitled to ex parte in camera hearing regarding "official information," prosecutor had to state why the privilege applied to the situation, or declare that such explanation in open court would betray the privilege.
|
|||||
| Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. A085271.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment reversed; defendant scouting organizations had a duty to have taken reasonable protective measures to protect plaintiff former boy scout from the risk of sexual abuse by adult volunteers.
|
|||||
| Pratt v. Gursey, No. B139631.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By signing an arbitration agreement with a client, attorneys expressly waived the right to to secure appellate review of a binding arbitration award in client's favor.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., No. S069596.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After he retired decedent suffered from distinct diseases arising from asbestos exposure so action was not time-barred as limitation time did not run for non-employee; personal jurisdiction existed by participation in consolidating actions.
|
|||||
| In re Rodriguez, B138959,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed absent evidence of unprofessional conduct or prejudicial effect and inmate was estopped from asserting jurisdiction issue after consenting to court's plea agreement procedure.
|
|||||
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. |
