California, January, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - California - January 13, 2005

People v. Betts, S111309, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Evidence supported trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over defendant's alleged crimes, some of which were committed outside of California during three trucking trips, because defendant formed intent to commit lewd acts while he was in California.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Dominguez, H022727, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

People v. Gutierrez, B169161, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Reclamation Dist. No. 684 v. Department of Industrial Relations, C044814, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Reclamation district could not avoid payment of prevailing wage for maintenance work on a levee; the work did not fall within the exception for the operation of an irrigation or drainage system because the levee's purpose was to prevent flooding.

Search Cases for Free

Reigelsperger v. Siller, C045534, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Arbitration agreement signed on patient's first visit to chiropractor did not apply to action arising from next visit, years later, because no ongoing relationship established open-book account. Patient paid in full and made no future appointment.

Search Cases for Free

The Home Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, S110328, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Mere likelihood of, or potential for, a conflict between primary insurers and excess insurer did not establish they were on different sides within the meaning of a statute authorizing a party to exercise a peremptory challenge against a trial judge.

Search Cases for Free

V. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA COUNTY, F046623, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal