 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Asmus v. Pacific Bell, No. S074296.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was able to terminate an employment policy as it was a unilateral contract of indefinite duration, termination occurred after a reasonable time, employees had reasonable notice, and vested rights were not affected.
|
|||||
| Calhoon v. Lewis, No. D033168.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper where plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in skateboarding and defendants owed no affirmative duty to plaintiff to make their driveway safe for skateboarding activities.
|
|||||
| L.A. County Employees Ass'n v. Superior Court, No. B128720.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandate directing municipal court to accord civil service status to its deputy court clerks was affirmed; denial of civil service status would have violated mandatory civil service rules contrary to express legislative purpose.
|
|||||
| Obrien v. Jones, No. S085212.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Permitting executive and legislative branches to appoint some hearing judges in State Bar Court, and requiring them to be lawyers was not material impairment of court's inherent power over attorney discipline.
|
|||||
| People v. Mendoza, F032945,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pertaining to proceeding to civilly commit defendant as sexually violent predator, court held that pursuant to relevant statute plaintiff could establish details of defendant's underlying offenses through hearsay testimony.
|
|||||
| People v. Mitchell, No. D034236.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Equitable doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prohibited State from presenting evidence on prior conviction issue which appellate court had stated, as matter of law, was insufficient to support sentence enhancement.
|
|||||
| People v. Russell, No. C031844.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Erratic driving justified the stop, and the strong odor emanating from the rear of the vehicle, together with the other circumstances observed during the stop, justified the investigation of possible drug activity.
|
|||||
| Savannah B. v. Superior Court, No. B139718.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Moot petition for writ of mandate was dismissed, but only after court addressed recurring issue of inconsistent juvenile court orders removing a minor from parental custody, but allowing visitation. Such orders were held unlawful.
|
|||||
| Southwest Research Inst. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., No. E025396.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's decision that respondent was appellant's employee was not supported by substantial evidence, and the court ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued.
|
|||||
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. |
