 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Day v. Alta Bates Medical Ctr., No. A095702.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney could not recover fees against a hospital lien claimant who could arguably have received an incidental benefit from the attorney's actions in representing a plaintiff in an underlying medical malpractice action.
|
|||||
| Fry v. Saenz, No. C038026.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of completion rule to cutoff aid benefits to disabled children, as it was unlikely that children would complete high school by age 19, unlawfully denied children the benefits of the program on account of their disabilities.
|
|||||
| Kollander Construction v. Superior Court, No. B155620.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Facts supported trial court's finding that new circumstances arose to support reconsideration of trial court's denial of real party in interest's motion to set aside a dismissal with prejudice.
|
|||||
| People v. Nat'l Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co., No. B148171.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to expressly state bail was forfeited in open court as mandated by statute resulted in trial court losing jurisdiction to later attempt to forfeit the bail by simply noting it in the minutes.
|
|||||
| Westerfield v. Superior Court, No. D040021.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 8, 2002, Decided , May 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in plain language of child pornography statute prohibited copying of images for use by defense in preparing for trial. Also, failing to copy images impacted petitioner's right to effective assistance of counsel and to speedy trial.
|
|||||
| Z v. Bekov, No. A093757.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrator, not court, determined issues of joinder and intervention. Thus, it had to decide whether or not engineer's presence at arbitration was relevant to full and complete settlement of dispute with subject matter of arbitration agreement.
|
|||||
| In re Josiah S., B151283,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in denying mother's request to contest continued long-term placement of her son at a six-month status review hearing.
|
|||||
| People v. Koontz, No. S036450.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for premeditated or felony murder, and death sentence were upheld. Self-representation without competency proceedings was not error. Magistrate's comment on defendant's incompetency referred to defendant's lack of legal knowledge.
|
|||||
| People v. Mantanez, No. D038813.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use of the "Three Strikes Law" to impose a life sentence on defendant convicted for possession of heroin and receiving stolen property was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
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. |
