 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kain v. State Dep't of Health Servs., No. B144391.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment ruling that state health department was entitled to seek reimbursement for Medi-Cal benefits was affirmed where Medi-Cal services recipient assigned right to recover medical expenses from third party who was liable to pay for expenses.
|
|||||
| People v. Branch, No. A089941.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony about 30-year-old uncharged similar sex offenses was relevant to common scheme, intent, and absence of mistake or accident, and was more probative than prejudicial, so it was properly admitted.
|
|||||
| People v. Brown, No. D035066.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of reversible error, appellant's convictions of second degree murder and the unlawful practice of medicine were affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Collins, No. S075232.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's waiver of a jury trial obtained by trial court's assurance of an unspecified benefit was not a valid waiver, and this error compelled reversal of defendant's convictions for committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child.
|
|||||
| People v. Elam, No. B141040.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of reversible error, defendant's conviction for assault with intent to commit a sexual felony, forcible oral copulation, one count of misdemeanor-or-felony sexual battery, and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, were affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Kennedy, No. A091491.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The defendant was properly convicted of possession of valium where the legislative intent of the statute clearly authorized such conviction as a misdemeanor.
|
|||||
| People v. Lewis, No. S020032.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death sentence imposed for first degree murder with robbery as a special circumstance was affirmed. Eye witness with intellect of a seven-year old had capacity to perceive and recollect, and was competent to testify.
|
|||||
| People v. Sengpadychith, No. S090076.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to specify gang's "primary activities" was error under Apprendi and should have been subject to federal harmless error analysis regarding firearm offense, but not as to attempted murder where enhancement did not increase maximum penalty.
|
|||||
| Sti Outdoor v. Superior Court, No. B148102, No. B148106.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, August 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney-client privilege was not waived in disclosure of three documents. Evidence supported contention that disclosure of the documents was reasonably necessary to further interests of both parties to license agreement.
|
|||||
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. |
