 |
|
 |
|
|
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 San Luis Obispo v. Superior Court, No. B147202.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner who lost property in foreclosure action could not be granted mandamus relief for county's denial of certificates of compliance for a subdivision, because he lacked standing. Declaratory relief was also improper.
|
|||||
| Dudley v. Dep't of Transp., No. C036154.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal based on a judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, was reversed because employee's complaint could be amended to state a retaliation claim under the California Family Rights Act.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. Gibson, No. B139450.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The business failed to prove its right to a continuance on motion for summary judgment when it failed to show that facts necessary to oppose the motion existed, but they could not be used because of the privilege against self-incrimination.
|
|||||
| Harrott v. County of Kings, No. S055064.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney general had authority to identify "series" assault weapons, but a trial court could not find a semiautomatic firearm a "series" weapon unless the firearm had first been included in a list issued by the attorney general.
|
|||||
| Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad, F034334,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not impermissibly award prejudgment interest to injured railroad employee. Awarding prejudgment interest did not reflect a reallocation of the burden of compensation for the injury to the employee.
|
|||||
| People v. Bolter, No. A092605.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of witness-killing special circumstance charge was error because, as used in statute, "testimony" was not limited to the innocuous words spoken on the stand by the victim, it also referred to his mere act of testifying.
|
|||||
| People v. Russo, No. S088368.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unanimity instruction was not required where the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was one conspiracy, and that one of the participants committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (Jimenez), No. B148656,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge disqualified by State's peremptory challenge was not "available" to hear a second suppression motion. Only the appellate court had jurisdiction over real party in interest's petition for writ of mandate to reassign case to judge.
|
|||||
| People v. Turner, No. B138940.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug possession convictions were reversed, where defendant made a prima facie case of discriminatory exclusion of jurors and prosecutor failed to demonstrate that juror was not excluded because of race bias.
|
|||||
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. |
