iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Table of Contents -I			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

California
Law Dictionary
 Table of Contents- I

A - Aa -  Ab -Ac - Ad  - Ae - - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - K - L - M- N -O-  P - Q to Z   
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    

I

==== ===========

Indefinitely suspension Criminal Law -6th Amend  Constitutional Law Right to a  Speedy Trial KLOPFER v. NORTH CAROLINA

 Indefinitely suspension -6th Amend Constitutional Law Trial -Speedy Right to a Criminal LawKLOPFER v. NORTH CAROLINA

 Indefinitely suspension 6th Constitutional Law-Criminal Law Speedy trial  Right to a-KLOPFER v. NORTH CAROLINA

 Indefinitely suspension -6th Constitutional Law--Trial Speedy Trial  Right Criminal Law to a KLOPFER v. NORTH CAROLINA

============

Inferred From the Circumstances-Intent Could be-Criminal Law-(In re Daniel G.)
 

Inferred-Intent From the Circumstances-Could be-Criminal Law- -(In re Daniel G.)
 

Inferred-Criminal Law-Intent From the Circumstances-Could be-(In re Daniel G.)
 

Injunction-Preliminary  Moving Party Burden-(Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunction-Moving Party Burden-Preliminary  (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunction-Burden-Moving Party Preliminary  (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunction-Preliminary Burden-Moving Party  (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunctive Relief-Burden-Moving Party Preliminary  (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunctive Relief--Moving Party Preliminary Burden (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunctive Preliminary Relief--Moving Party  Burden (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

Injunctive Relief-Preliminary -Moving Party  Burden (Gray v. Sup. Ct.)
 

=

Injury to Tangible Property Insurance Interpretation Contracts Physical (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Injury Physical to Tangible Property  Interpretation Insurance Contracts (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Injury to  Insurance Interpretation Contracts Tangible Property Physical (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Injury to Interpretation Insurance Contracts Tangible Property Physical(F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Injury to Tangible Property Insurance Contracts  Interpretation Physical(F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Injury,Physical to Tangible Property Contracts Interpretation Insurance  (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

=====

Illegal Contracts-General Principles-(Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enterprise) 
Illegality Contract -Standard of Review Summary judgment-Question of LawKashani v. China Enterprise

Immigration-Departure . . . was not intended     
Implied Exclusion-Statutory Construction-Richmond       
Implied Malice-Murder-Implied Malice-(People v. Taylor)

 

==============

Implied consent Criminal Law  Drunk Driving Vehicle Code sec  13353 (Troppman v. Gourle)
 

 Implied consent Drunk Driving Vehicle Code sec  13353 Criminal Law  Troppman v. Gourle
 

 Implied consent Vehicle Code sec  13353 Drunk Driving Criminal Law  Troppman v. Gourle
 

============

============

Implied assertions are hearsayCriminal Law-Evidence Code §1235, Hearsay-Evidence (People v. Morgan)

Implied assertions are Code §1235,Hearsay Evidence Criminal Law-Hearsay-Evidence  (People v. Morgan)

 Implied assertions are hearsayEvidence Code §1235,Evidence Hearsay-Criminal Law-(People v. Morgan)

Implied assertions are hearsay Evidence Code §1235, Evidence Hearsay-Criminal Law-(People v. Morgan)

Implied assertions are hearsay Evidence Code §1235,Hearsay-Criminal Law-Evidence  (People v. Morgan)

mmmmmmmmm

Immunity-Government-Immunity-Official's -( Kilroy v. State of California)
Immunity-Official's-Government-Immunity-Official's -( Kilroy v. State of California)  
Immunity-Government-Qualified-Immunity-Official's -( Kilroy v. State of California)
Improver-Good Faith Improver- (Civ. Code-§ 871.5 -TREMPER     

In - EMMI           
Independent-Contracts Breach-Tortious-Independent Duty Necessary-(Beverly v. Netwrk Sol)
In or Upon Such Vehicle -Insurance Coverage Exclusion- EMMI
 

====

Inconsistent Verdicts-Trial against the law-City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton

Inconsistent Trial against the law-City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton

Inconsistent against the law-Verdicts-Trial City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton

========

Inconsistent Pleadings Allegations-Exhibits take precedence over Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp

Inconsistent -Allegations take precedence over Exhibits Pleadings Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp

 Inconsistent Pleadings Exhibits take precedence over Allegations -Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp

========

====

=============

Intoxicated Driving Drunk Criminal Law Arrest Presence exception Vehicle Code sec 40300.5 Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Driving Drunk Arrest Criminal Law Vehicle Code sec 40300.5 Presence exception Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Driving Drunk Arrest Presence exception  Vehicle Code sec 40300.5Criminal Law Troppman_v_Gourley

 Intoxicated Drunk Arrest Criminal Law Presence exception  Vehicle Code sec 40300.5 Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Drunk Driving Criminal Law Code Vehicle sec 40300.5 Presence exception  Arrest Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Arrest  Drunk Criminal Law DrivingCode Vehicle sec 40300.5 Presence exception  Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Driving Drunk Arrest Presence exception  Criminal Law Intoxicated Vehicle Code sec 40300.5 Troppman_v_Gourley

Intoxicated Drunk Driving Arrest Presence exception  Criminal Law Under the influence  Vehicle Code sec 40300.5 Troppman_v_Gourley

=====

=

Insurance Interpretation Contracts Physical Injury to Tangible Property (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Insurance Contracts  Injury Physicalto Tangible Property  Interpretation (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Insurance Interpretation Contracts Tangible Property Physical Injury to(F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Insurance Contracts Tangible Property Physical Injury to Interpretation (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Insurance Contracts  Interpretation Physical Injury to Tangible Property (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Insurance Physical Injury to Tangible Property Contracts Interpretation (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

=====

=========

Insurance Code § 359 Contracts Rescission Based on Misrepresentation Mitchell v. United Nat. Ins.)

Insurance Code § 359 Rescission Based on Contracts MisrepresentationMitchell v. United Nat. Ins.)

Insurance Code § 359 Rescission Contracts Misrepresentation Based on Mitchell v. United Nat. Ins.)

Insurance Code § 359 Rescission Based on Misrepresentation Contracts Mitchell v. United Nat. Ins.)
 

=====

Insurance Construction Contracts Rules of F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins

Insurance Rules of  Contracts Construction (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Insurance Contracts Rules of  Construction (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

=====

Issue-Appeal Law Constitutionality issue avoided Constitutional (Gresher v. Anderson)

Issue Appeal Law Constitutionality issue avoided Constitutional (Gresher v. Anderson) \

====

Issue- Appeal Law Constitutional Law-Constitutionality issue avoided(Gresher v. Anderson)

Issue-Appeal Law  issue Constitutionality avoided( Constitutional Law Gresher v. Anderson)

======

==

=

Interpretation Contracts Injury to Tangible Property Insurance Physical (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Interpretation Insurance Contracts  Injury Physical to Tangible Property  (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Interpretation Contracts Tangible Property Physical Injury to  Insurance(F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Interpretation Insurance Contracts Physical  Injury to Tangible Property (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

 Interpretation Physical  Injury to Tangible Property Insurance Contracts (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

Interpretation Insurance  Injury,Physical to Tangible Property Contracts (F & H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins)

=====

===============

Insufficiency of the Evidence-, Standard of Review -Appeal (Munoz v. City of Union City)

Insufficiency  Standard of Review-of the Evidence-, -Appeal (Munoz v. City of Union City)

Insufficiency -Appeal  Standard of Review-of the Evidence-, (Munoz v. City of Union City)

Insufficiency-Evidence-Appeal  Standard of Review-of the-, (Munoz v. City of Union City)

Insufficient Evidence- Claim of Standard of Review Criminal Law Appeal -(In re Daniel G.)

Insufficient Claim of Standard of Review Evidence- Criminal Law Appeal -(In re Daniel G.)

Insufficient Standard of Review Claim of Evidence- Criminal Law Appeal -(In re Daniel G.)

Insufficient Criminal Law Standard of Review Claim of Evidence-  Appeal -(In re Daniel G.)

Insufficient Appeal Criminal Law Standard of Review Claim of Evidence-  -(In re Daniel G.)

Insurer &Employer for Benefits Rights Subrogation Paid Workers Compensation -(Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer &Employer Rights Subrogation Paid Workers Compensation for Benefits  -(Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer &Employer Subrogation Rights Paid Workers Compensation for Benefits  -(Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer &Employer Subrogation Rights for Benefits Paid Workers Compensation  -(Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer &Employer Subrogation Rights for Workers Compensation Benefits Paid-(Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer Subrogation Rights for Workers Compensation Benefits Paid-&Employer (Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer Rights-Subrogation  for Workers Compensation Benefits Paid-&Employer (Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer Workers Compensation Benefits Paid-Rights-Subrogation  for-&Employer (Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer Compensation Workers Benefits Paid-Rights-Subrogation  for-&Employer (Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

Insurer Benefits Paid-Rights-Subrogation for-Compensation Workers-&Employer (Fremont Comp.Ins.v.Sierra Pine )

===

 Invited error Estoppel Doctrine ofapplication of principle Appeals (Norgart v. Upjohn)

Invited error - application of Estoppel principle Doctrine of Appeals (Norgart v. Upjohn)

Invited error Estoppel Doctrine Appeals application of  of - principle (Norgart v. Upjohn)

Invited error Doctrine of - Estoppel Appeals principle application of  - (Norgart v. Upjohn)

Invited error Doctrine of Appeals application of principle Estoppel  -(Norgart v. Upjohn)

=======

Investigation, In Custody for Miranda Purposes-Morse     
Interrogation, Custody for Miranda Purposes-Morse      
Incriminating Statements -Custody for Miranda Purposes-Morse      
Incrimination -Custody for Miranda Purposes-Morse      
Incriminating-Statement-Suppression--Miranda Custody-Criminal-YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO (02-1684)  
Incrimination-Statement-Suppression--Miranda Custody-Criminal-YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO (02-1684)




In or Upon Upon Such Vehicle, Actually- Exclusion-Insurance Coverage, -EMMI   
In, Actually In or Upon Such Vehicle -Insurance Coverage Exclusion- EMMI    
Insurance, Actually In or Upon Such Vehicle -Insurance Coverage Exclusion- EMMI     
Insurance Coverage-Actually In or Upon Such Vehicle -Insurance Coverage Exclusion- EMMI    
Insurance Coverage Exclusion,   Actually In or Upon Such Vehicle -- EMMI        
Individual   
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel   
Injunction. Denial of a Preliminary Injunction, Standard of Review-(Citizens for Safer Streets)     
Injunction, Preliminary Injunction -Plaintiff Burden Citizens for Safer Streets    
Instruction,-Reasonable Doubt -"Abiding Conviction"-Suffieciently Clear-(People v. Gonzales)    bb
 

Instruction Deemed to Have Been Excepted toAppeal-Giving, Refusing, Modifying (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instruction Giving, Refusing, Modifying Deemed to Have Been Excepted toAppeal-(Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instruction Appeal-Giving, Refusing, Modifying Deemed to Have Been Excepted to(Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instruction Refusing, Modifying Appeal-Giving, Deemed to Have Been Excepted to(Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instruction Excepted to-Deemed to Have Been Refusing, Modifying Appeal-Giving, (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Error-Jury-Review-Standards of -Appeal-Claim of Jury (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Error-Review-Standards of -Appeal-Claim of Jury-Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Error-Standards of Review--Appeal-Claim of Jury-Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Claim of Error-Standards of Review--Appeal-Jury-Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Appeal-Claim of Error-Standards of Review--Jury-Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Jury-Appeal-Claim of Error-Standards of Review---Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Error-Jury-Appeal-Claim of -Standards of Review---Jury- (Huffman v. Interstate Brands)

Instructional Confusion-Court Duty to Clear Up Any, Penal Code Section 1138 mm   
Instructional Error-Prejudicial Instructional Error (Chapman)   
Inherently Dangerous Felony-Williams     
Insurance In Liquidation Proceedings, Standard of review--Garamandi  
Insurance Policy, Willful Failure to Fulfill Obligations Under Insurance Policy Brizuela     

 

Instructions -Criminal Defendant Trial Right, to-Jury-Court Duty-(People v. Barajas)

Instructions -Criminal Trial Defendant Right, to-Jury-Court Duty-(People v. Barajas)

Instructions -Right, to -Jury Criminal Trial Defendant  -Court Duty-(People v. Barajas)

Instructions -Jury Criminal Trial Defendant Right, to -Court Duty-(People v. Barajas)

Instructions -Defendant Right, to Jury Criminal Trial -Court Duty-(People v. Barajas)

=============

Instructions-Theories Jury Trial-Right to on All of Case-  (Munoz v. City of Union City)
 

Instructions-Jury Trial-Right to on All of Case-Theories -  (Munoz v. City of Union City)
 

Instructions-Jury Trial-Right to on All Theories of Case- -  (Munoz v. City of Union City)
 

Insurance Policy Provision-Ambiguity-Contract Interpretation Rule---(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)

Intent Could be-Inferred From the Circumstances--Criminal Law- -(In re Daniel G.)
 

Intent Criminal Law-Could be-Inferred From the Circumstances-- -(In re Daniel G.)
 

Intent Circumstances-Could be-Inferred From the-Criminal Law--(In re Daniel G.)
 

Interest, Accural of -From Date of Entry of Judgment CCP 685.010(a)(Garamendi v. Golden Eagle) kkkk

Internet-(Beverly, dba PSB v. Network Solutions)


 

Iintentional Tort interference with Prospective Economic advantage-Elements -of the Buckaloo v. Johnson

Iintentional interference with Prospective Economic advantage-Elements Tort-of the Buckaloo v. Johnson

Intentional Interference With Contract-Tort-(Beverly v. Network Solutions)

Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, Tort of-Element-(Buckaloo)   
Interference, Intentional  With Prospective Economic Advantage, Tort of-Element-(Buckaloo)    jj  

 

Interference-Intentional Interference With Contract-Tort-(Beverly v. Network Solutions)

Interrogation-Miranda Custody-Criminal Law Trial Suppression-Evidence-YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO (02-1684)

Interrogation-Suppression-Evidence-Miranda Custody-Criminal Law Trial-YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO (02-1684)

Interpretation of Constitution Principles       

Interpretation-Contract Interpretation-Language Governs-Civ. Code, § 1638 mmm 

 

Interpretation-Rule of Contract Interpretation-Ambiguity-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)

Interpretation-Contract Interpretation-Ambiguity-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)

Interpretation-Insurance-Contract Interpretation-Ambiguity-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)

Interpretation of Contract-Standard of Review-Interpretation of Contract-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)


  
Interpretation, Contract-Statutory Rules of -Civ. Code, § 1636-EEMI 
Interpretation of Statute-The Acid Test of Statutory Interpretation (CIGA)
Interpretation of Statute -Ortiz   
Interpretation Insurance Policy-EMMI  
Interpretation Insurance Policy-Exclusion-EMMI*     
Insurance Policy-Interpretation of Insurance Policy-EMMI   
Insurance Policy-Standard of Review-Interpretation of Contract-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty Co)

 

Interest-Public Issue Appeal General Affects Mootness-Exception-Marshall v. Pasadena Unified Sch.Dist.

Interest-General Public Issue Appeal Affects Mootness-Exception-Marshall v. Pasadena Unified Sch.Dist.

Interest-Affects General Public Issue Appeal Mootness-Exception-Marshall v. Pasadena Unified Sch.Dist.

Interest-Mootness-Affects General Public Issue Appeal Exception-Marshall v. Pasadena Unified Sch.Dist.

Interest-Appeal-Mootness-Affects General Public Issue Exception-Marshall v. Pasadena Unified Sch.Dist.

 Interference with Prospective Economic advantage-Elements -of the Iintentional TortBuckaloo v. Johnson

 Interference Iintentional Tort with Prospective Economic advantage-Elements -of the Buckaloo v. Johnson

Interpretation of Statute-Ranger           

Interpretation-Statutory Construction New Statutes-Application_General Rule Operate Prospectively Not Retrospectively-Metcalf v. U-Haul
 

Interpretation-Statutory Construction New Statutes-Application General Rule-Exception-RetrospectivelyMetcalf v. U-Haul

Interpretation of Statute-Plain Meaning-(People v. Chacon)  kkk

 

Interpretation of Statutory -The Term "May" is Permissive-(Estate of Miramontes-Najera)

      
Interpretation of Statutory Interpretation -The Term "Shall-Mandatory"(Estate of Miramontes-Najera)
  

Interpretation-Statutory Construction-Clear Meaning Binding Citizens for Safer Streets-Dissent bb   
Interpretation of Statute-Implied Exclusion-Richmond  
Interpretation Later-Enacted Statutes-Judicial Decision    
Interpretation, Statutory Rules of Contract Interpretation-Civ. Code, § 1644-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty ) mm
 

Interpretation, Statutory-Reference to The Entire Scheme of Law-(Nobel v. Franchise Tax Board)

Interpretation-Statutory Interpretation -of Term "Shall" Mandatory (Estate of Miramontes-Najera)lll  

Interpretation, Rule of Contract Interpretation-EMMI    
Interpretation, Rule of Contract Interpretation-Civ. Code, § 1644-(Nava v. Mercury Casualty )


Ipsa, Res Ipsa Loquitur-(Ybarra v. Spangard)    
Issue Preclusion Doctrine Res Judicata Collateral Estoppel - Barragan    
Issue-Appeal - Issue Waived on Appeal.(Charnley v. Blackburn)
 

Issue Failure to Preserve in the Trial Court-Will Preclude Appellate Consideration-People v Barajas

Issue-Trial Court-Failure to Preserve in the -Will Preclude Appellate Consideration-People v Barajas

iiiiiiiiiiii

Interest Prosecuted in name of Real Party  in Action Standing must be (Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

Interest  Action Standing Prosecuted must beReal Party in Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

 Interest  Real Party Prosecuted in-must be in name of -Standing Action ( Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

Interest-Action Prosecuted Standing-must be in name of  Real Party in   ( Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

Interest-Standing-Action Prosecuted-must be in name of-Real Party in (Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

========

A - Aa -  Ab -Ac - Ad  - Ae - - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - K - L - M- N -O-  P - Q to Z   
Appealable-Collateral Order Doctrine-(COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUS. LOAN CORP) 
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score | UN Treaty Reference Guide
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law | Yaazoo!
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | United Statea News | California Discovery
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress | California Appeals
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US |United States News
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | Advanced Trial Handbook | California Legal Forms
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission | California Writs
California Civil Procedure.Com | Advanced Trial Handbook-Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq. | Federal Courts
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos | Agogados De Accidentes  | United States History | Spanish | Financial Center