 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors, No. A089095.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Final subsequent environmental impact report and updated specific plan for development of unincorporated county land were inadequate and invalid due to inconsistencies with county general plan.
|
|||||
| Welch v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. A092262, No. A092270.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Education statute conferred probationary status on all school district interns, even those who had been employed less than one year, entitling them to 30 days' notice of termination and a right to a hearing.
|
|||||
| Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., No. S083466.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Survivors and representatives of victims killed or wounded by gunman armed with firearms made by gun manufacturer could not hold manufacturer liable on a common law negligence theory; statute precluded survivors from proceeding on this theory.
|
|||||
| People v. Ochoa, No. S030416.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an automatic appeal, the state supreme court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty upon defendant convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted second degree robbery with the use of a firearm.
|
|||||
| People v. Vargas, No. H017310.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant charged with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a street gang was properly convicted and sentenced; the jury was not required to determine whether one or multiple conspiracies existed.
|
|||||
| In re Patricia T., No. B143242.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, August 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights. She fully understood that by waiving rights, she could lose custody of her children.
|
|||||
| Pavlovich v. Superior Court, H021961,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since student knew his unlawful actions could affect parties in California, his use of Internet to post trade secrets provided minimum contacts. He did not show that jurisdiction was unreasonable.
|
|||||
| People v. Superior Court (maloy), No. F037893.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge's denial of motion to disqualify himself was erroneous because it defied expressed statutory intent. Trial judge could be disqualified upon filing affidavit even if there was trial of only single issue.
|
|||||
| In re Marcus A., No. E027896.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 8, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in remanding juvenile to the youth authority where the basis for custody was a probation revocation based on his possession of cigarettes, but, because this was a crime, a separate proceeding should have been held.
|
|||||
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. |
