 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, B145406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 25, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs asserting punitive damages claim on behalf of deceased father allegedly injured by reckless custodian did not have to comply with disputed timeliness requirements simply because custodian was also care provider.
|
|||||
| Dobler v. Arluk Medical Ctr. Indus. Group, No. B141132.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, May 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant timely filed its claim against decedent's probate assets, it was not necessary to separately sue plaintiffs as trustees of decedent's trust when probate assets were insufficient to satisfy the money judgment.
|
|||||
| Hicks v. E. T. Legg & Assocs., No. D034398.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislature did not intend to prohibit the postponement of a foreclosure sale of homeowners' property for successive periods of five or fewer business days during period sale was precluded by an injunction or bankruptcy stay.
|
|||||
| In re Jeremy S., No. G027867.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was correct in terminating father's and mother's parental rights to their son and freeing son for adoption. There was no showing that additional reunification services would have been in the son's best interests.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Superior Court, No. B147607.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort action involving police brutality filed action the County of Los Angeles, California, a petition for writ of mandate was granted for determination of whether the county had an obligation to preserve audio recordings of the incident.
|
|||||
| Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., No. B134874.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no abuse of discretion in refusing a request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint; plaintiff missed the court's deadline and did not seek any extension in order to locate documents purportedly needed before filing.
|
|||||
| People v. Salazar-Merino, No. A090898, No. A092314.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The false document criminal statute, a specific intent statute, was unambiguous and not preempted by federal law. Because the Proposition 187 sections under which it was added to the penal code were severable; the statute was constitutional.
|
|||||
| People v. Stevens, C036593,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of error, orders requiring defendant to pay $ 400 for the costs of court-appointed counsel and to report to the parole office in Kern County, California, upon his release from prison, were affirmed on appeal.
|
|||||
| Zaxis Wireless Communications v. Motor Sound Corp., No. C035616.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury's award of $ 300,000 in punitive damages in a contract action was not excessive considering the volume of defendant's revenues, the net worth of defendant's assets, and the fact that defendant had the capacity to borrow $ 50 million.
|
|||||
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. |
