 |
|
 |
|
|
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 L.A. v. Superior Court, No. B134958.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public records requested under CPRA by persons suing sheriff department for false arrest, were first subjected to in camera review, because some documents may have been privileged, or impacted public safety.
|
|||||
| In re Jorge M., No. S074270.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute that made it crime to possess assault weapon required showing violator knew or should have known gun's characteristics made it assault weapon even though statute expressed no specific mental state required for conviction.
|
|||||
| Nager v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. G024720.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant failed to prove that respondent insurer exhibited any bad faith or that appellant had sustained a tangible economic loss sufficient to support a bad faith claim.
|
|||||
| People v. Alleyne, No. G024061.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The death of the only other coconspirator did not terminate the conspiracy where the sole remaining conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
|
|||||
| People v. Becker, No. G025753.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's acquittal on the attempted robbery and burglary charges was immaterial to the firearm enhancement, because the presence and availability of a gun on the defendant during the conspiracy created the added risk of death or injury.
|
|||||
| People v. Bohannon, No. B115308.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendants had not received unfair trials simply because they had failed to receive some of the witnesses' addresses, but a sentence report should have been made for defendant who was technically eligible for parole.
|
|||||
| People v. Ferris, No. D033181.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the criminal charges were consolidated for trial and joined into one case, the trial court erred in imposing restitution fines as though there were two separate criminal cases.
|
|||||
| People v. Frawley, No. A088519.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendant could be charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon even though his prior conviction had been dismissed, because the dismissal was not intended as an expungement.
|
|||||
| People v. Matelski, No. E025259.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution in a drug possession case should have been allowed to use seized drugs as evidence because the search had been justified by the fact that it was not intrusive and that the police did not need a search warrant to search the premises.
|
|||||
| People v. Mendoza, No. S067104.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury was not permitted to determine the degree of the crime of felony murder, because the crime was defined by statute as murder in the first degree.
|
|||||
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. |
