 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Superior Court, No. B140746.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court lacked inherent authority to order a discovery sanction requiring an attorney to pay his client's share of a referee's fees.
|
|||||
| Greenfield v. Fritz Companies, Inc., A086982,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A shareholder's cause of action for fraud against a corporation could be based on the shareholder's decision not to sell shares after receiving misleading statements from the corporation.
|
|||||
| Kimberly H. v. Superior Court, No. D035464.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon denial of reunification services, petitioner was not entitled to a contested hearing on the substantial probability of return in the absence of a motion demonstrating a change of circumstances.
|
|||||
| People v. Hall, No. B134828.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutorial misconduct denied appellant his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine an uncalled prosecution witness.
|
|||||
| People v. Perez, No. B126876.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, July 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Gang members convicted for murder following a drive-by shooting were not denied the constitutional right to confrontation by a witness who responded as not remembering to virtually all questions on cross-examination.
|
|||||
| Shaffery v. Wilson, No. B139451.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer hired to defend company from harassment suit was not entitled to indemnity from law firm hired to monitor lawyer's representation after lawyer was sued for malpractice, as law firm's client's best interest would have been jeopardized.
|
|||||
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. |
