 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indem. Co., No. B126862.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, June 7, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court concluded that plaintiff's self-insured retentions (SIR) were not primary insurance, such that SIRs did not have to be exhausted before defendant excess insurers incurred obligations under relevant insurance policies.
|
|||||
| People v. Miller, No. H017020.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 7, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Codefendants' criminal convictions for theft by false pretenses were upheld, because evidence of three uncharged similar incidents was properly admitted to show common scheme or plan.
|
|||||
| People v. Toledo, B126748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A criminal conviction for attempted terrorist threat was affirmed; even though the victim wasn't placed in fear, a reasonable person would have been frightened by appellant's statements.
|
|||||
| Simi Valley Adventist Hosp. v. Bonta, No. B117712.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, June 7, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospitals' appeals of state's reimbursement of particular claims was dismissed as untimely, but matter was remanded for consideration of whether state's method constituted an "underground regulation" not authorized by law.
|
|||||
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. |
