 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Brian M., No. G026653.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to deny mother reunification services was supported by substantial evidence. Her violation of order to attend drug rehabilitation as condition of probation justified refusal to offer rehabilitation services.
|
|||||
| In re Gossage, No. S068704.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission to practice law was denied. Applicant had not overcome the heavy burden to prove rehabilitation from moral turpitude crimes committed prior to law school. Application did not list all crimes, including some crimes after parole was over.
|
|||||
| In re Jullian B., No. C034955.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an adoption case involving an Indian youth, the Department of Health and Human Services erred by refusing to place an Indian youth in a prospective Indian home without considering the appropriate statutory factors.
|
|||||
| People v. Archer, No. B130704. No. B135991.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Murder conviction was reversed. Admission of codefendant's redacted written statement unmistakably implicating defendant violated defendant's constitutional right to confront witness since it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| People v. King, No. A079943.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Fourth Amendment was not violated by admission of DNA evidence taken from appellant without a warrant.
|
|||||
| People v. Le, No. G018045. No. G018046. No. G018057.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's failure to plead and prove that the statute of limitations had not run resulted in reversal of defendants' convictions with direction to acquit on all charges.
|
|||||
| People v. Molina, No. C032811.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DUI convictions were upheld because the trial court did not err in refusing the necessity instruction or in giving the jury misconduct instruction; the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| People v. Robles, No. S069306.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly not held to answer under provision elevating from misdemeanor to felony offense of carrying loaded firearm in public, as sufficient evidence was not presented of commission of substantive gang offense.
|
|||||
| People v. Sturiale, No. F033825.,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 14, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence were affirmed because the trial court had no power to overrule the prosecution's determination that appellant was ineligible for a deferred entry of judgment.
|
|||||
| Turner v. Martire, E026082,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, August 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Native Americans accused of assault failed to show their conduct was discretionary in nature, therefore they were denied tribal immunity.
|
|||||
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. |
