 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. Hensler, No. B125401.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Through a joint powers agreement, joint cities, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena, California, were permitted to delegate their eminent domain power to a joint powers authority for the ownership and operation of an airport.
|
|||||
| Rothschild v. Tyco Internat. (us), No. D034567.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of appellant's action for violations of the unfair competition law was reversed because the bar on related actions applied only to subsequent qui tam actions filed under the false claims act.
|
|||||
| Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, No. F034780.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mere ownership of a subsidiary by a foreign parent corporation, without more, could not establish a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the parent corporation in the forum.
|
|||||
| United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Superior Court, No. B139562. No. B139686.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The store, the real party in interest, was not entitled to an injunction, since it failed to show that the law enforcement officers were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection from petitioner unions' picketing.
|
|||||
| Welch v. Cal., No. F033421.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant did not have standing to prosecute the wrongful death action, because a reasonable person in appellant's position would not have believed she was decedent's putative spouse.
|
|||||
| Cal. v. Superior Court, No. B140709.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's demurrer was granted: tobacco litigation claim was a direct statutory action, not an action on statutory assignments given by Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were not entitled to excess money from settlement.
|
|||||
| Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, No. S079190.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action by collection agency against surviving spouse for hospital expenses was governed by one-year limitations period; spouse was not liable for "necessaries of life" under family code, and four-year period did not apply.
|
|||||
| In re Laura F., No. F034368.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) full faith and credit provision did not empower tribe to control outcome of state juvenile proceedings, especially when tribe, although it could have done so, did not exercise its jurisdiction under ICWA.
|
|||||
| People v. Farell, H019633,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute mandating minimum jail sentence as a condition of probation for a defendant convicted of a felony for theft of an amount exceeding $ 50,000 was ambiguous and could not have been applied to the offense of trade secret theft.
|
|||||
| People v. Wutzke, D033221,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, September 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child molestation case, the trial court mistakenly concluded that appellant was ineligible for probation as a matter of law. Appellant was a relative of the victims, and therefore fully eligible for probation.
|
|||||
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. |
