 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burch v. Gombos, No. H019557.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though evidence showed that road crossing appellants property had been dedicated to the public, case was remanded for determination of whether dedication permitted commercial logging operations.
|
|||||
| Cal. Corr. Peace Officers Ass'n v. Cal., No. A085064.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injunction limiting corrections department's conduct in investigation of state prison guards was appropriate to prevent violation of guards' statutory rights, but was inappropriate as applied to justice department under separation of powers doctrine.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of McLaughlin, No. B125410.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though parties were required to exchange preliminary declarations of disclosure regarding assets and liabilities, failure to do so was harmless error because no prejudice from entry of judgment dissolving marriage was shown.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, No. B137144,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: De novo review of voir dire revealed non-discriminatory reasons for dismissing Hispanic jurors; evidence of firearm use was overwhelming. Defendant's counsel did not have conflict because he accepted position with district attorney.
|
|||||
| Rosasco v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance, No. A086366.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Constitutional amendment which expanded commission's authority to investigate retired judges for past misconduct could not be retroactively applied to judge who retired prior to amendment's effective date.
|
|||||
| Utility Cost Management v. Indian Wells Valley Water Dist., F030932,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An action brought on behalf of a community college to recover excessive capital facilities fees from a water district was an action to recover a special assessment, not subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks, No. B129406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 19, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A public works contract was abandoned as a matter of law where the city changed every aspect of the electrical work.
|
|||||
| Assilzadeh v. Cal. Fed. Bank, No. B133105.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A seller who acquired property during a foreclosure sale fulfilled its statutory duty of disclosure by informing buyer of construction defect litigation involving the subject property.
|
|||||
| Kendrick v. City of Eureka, No. A088104.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were required to file their state law claims in state court within 30 days of federal appellate court's judgment affirming dismissal of their claims without prejudice; failure to do so was fatal to their claims.
|
|||||
| Rosales v. City of L.A., No. B134358.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Violation of statutory disclosure procedures relating to police personnel files did not give rise to a private cause of action by former police officer, as legislature had provided no remedy for such a violation.
|
|||||
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. |
