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.
	State Courts - California - July 12, 2002
	Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, A094460, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, July 12, 2002, Filed View this case - free   Overview: The trial court erred when it ruled that defendants' obligation to place adequate pregnancy warnings on nicotine delivery products under California Proposition was impliedly preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	In re Edward H., No. F039428., COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 12, 2002, Decided , July 12, 2002, Filed View this case - free   Overview: In termination of parental rights case, county did not violate Indian Child Welfare Act notice requirements by failing to notice three federally recognized tribes, where county gave notice to Bureau of Indian Affairs, pursuant to the Act. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino, No. E028795., COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, July 12, 2002, Decided , July 12, 2002, Filed View this case - free   Overview: In a medical malpractice suit, a hospital was not entitled to nonsuit where there was a triable issue as to whether a negligent radiologist was the ostensible agent of the hospital. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	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.