 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Olmsted, No. C032412.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, October 24, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of possession of ammunition which contained or consisted of any flechette dart was improper; statute required tail fins at least 5/16 of an inch long, and testimony did not prove fins on defendant's items met requirement.
|
|||||
| People v. One Ruger .22-Caliber Pistol, No. B136093.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, October 24, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The forfeiture statute was constitutional, and the testimony of an examining psychiatrist was admissible in a hearing under the forfeiture statute, and was not covered by the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
|
|||||
| Rallis v. Cassady, B127047 cons. w/ B131724,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice suit, triable issues of fact existed as to the running of the statute of limitations, precluding summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Sheehy v. Franchise Tax Bd., No. G021719.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 24, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ten percent interest charged on tax due by plaintiffs was not usurious because debt was neither loan nor forbearance; thus constitutional prohibition of usury was not applicable. True purpose was not "hire of money" but a penalty.
|
|||||
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. |
