Source: https://www.clgca.com/reported-decisions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:09:27+00:00

Document:
People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court, No. S047833. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 14 Cal. 4th 294; 926 P.2d 1042; 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855; 1996 Cal. LEXIS 6518; 43 ERC (BNA) 1773; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8856; 96 Daily Journal DAR 14686, December 9, 1996, Decided .
Spielholz v. Superior Court, No. B131655. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 86 Cal. App. 4th 1366; 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 96; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1223; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 1541, February 8, 2001, Decided , Review Denied May 23, 2001, Reported at: 2001 Cal. LEXIS 3519.
McCabe v. Snyder, No. C028944. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 75 Cal. App. 4th 337; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 881; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8083; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10251, September 29, 1999, Decided , As Modified October 21, 1999.
Lazar v. Hertz Corp., Nos. A080439, A080767. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1494; 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 368; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 132; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1270; 99 Daily Journal DAR 1567, February 17, 1999, Decided , Review Denied April 28, 1999, Reported at: 1999 Cal. LEXIS 2850.
Harris v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. A060791., COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1563; 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 733; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1165; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8761; 94 Daily Journal DAR 16189, November 17, 1994, Decided , Review ordered on court’s own motion February 23, 1995 (S044161).
Kuykendall v. State Bd. of Equalization, No. D019620. , No. D020023. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1194; 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 783; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 153; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1364; 93 Daily Journal DAR 2342, February 22, 1994, Decided , Review Denied May 12, 1994, Reported at: 1994 Cal. LEXIS 2521.
Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. D016720. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 18 Cal. App. 4th 644; 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 419; 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 900; 93 Cal.
.Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. A059253., COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 22 Cal. App. 4th 628; 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 232; 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 728; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5380; 93 Daily Journal DAR 9083, July 14, 1993, Decided , NOT CITABLE – SUPERSEDED BY GRANT OF REVIEW , Review Granted September 30, 1993 (S034603), Reported at: 1993 Cal. LEXIS 5270.
Gallin v. Superior Court, No. D013850 , Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 230 Cal. App. 3d 541; 281 Cal. Rptr. 304; 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 532; 91 Daily Journal DAR 6234, May 10, 1991 , Certified for Publication May 24, 1991.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.