 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City and County of San Francisco v. Tijerino, A083665,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The order setting aside a judgment of paternity was reversed because respondent presented no new legal or factual grounds to justify reconsideration of the original order and he failed to show due diligence.
|
|||||
| In re Giovani M., No. B136918.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minor's unlawful possession of concealable weapon was not necessarily included offense of unlawful firearm discharge offense, so juvenile court did not err in sustaining charges; by pleading guilty, minor waived issues.
|
|||||
| Letitia v. V Superior Court, No. G026904.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No further reunification services were required where substantial efforts were made to address the parent's drug problem in connection with the removal of the prior child, and the parent showed no desire to change.
|
|||||
| Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., No. S065501.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower courts improperly considered and prejudged legal merit of surcharge cause of action, and, even after assuming it was meritorious, made erroneous legal assumptions in weighing potential benefits and burdens.
|
|||||
| Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. F033647.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The board's reconsideration decision was a final ruling on a threshold issue affecting petitioner's substantial right to workers' compensation benefits; thus the board's order remanding for trial on the merits was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Pearl v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., Civil No. B125991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The petition was denied because both workers' compensation law and the labor code applied to petitioner even though he had a right to a pension prior to the amendment to the labor code.
|
|||||
| People v. Talibdeen, B130967,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State and county penalty assessments were mandatory, and failure to raise the issue or object to the trial court's failure to levy them did not constitute waiver, so defendant's judgment was modified to add the assessments.
|
|||||
| Renee J. v. Superior Court, G026981,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying a mother reunification with her daughter was vacated, because evidence showed that petitioner was addressing the drug problem that led to removal of her children.
|
|||||
| San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Morro Bay, No. B130647.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California's Wheeling Statute allowed buyers and sellers, including school district, to transport water through appellee's city's water conveyance system.
|
|||||
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. |
