| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
00CA1209
|
Command Communications, Inc. v. Fritz Companies, Inc.
Customs broker did not breach fiduciary duty in failing to advise client to protest product classification. |
Torts |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
00CA2132
|
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Horace Mann Insurance Co.
Licensed motor vehicle insurance carrier subject to mandatory arbitration of PIP reimbursement. |
Insurance |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
00CA1401
|
In re the Marriage of Orr
Exemplified copy of foreign decree necessary for subject matter jurisdiction. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
00CA0998
|
In re the Marriage of Gorman
Husband's remainder interest in trusts was marital property subject to division. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
00CA1945
|
Bodelson v. City of Littleton
Colorado Open Records Act does not prohibit access to medical information by county coroner. |
Administrative Agencies |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
00SC492
|
Preston v. Dupont
Physical impairment or disfigurement aren't subject to $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages contained in Colorado Health Care Availability Act. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 19, 2002 | |
|
99-5130
|
Falvo v. Owasso Independent School District No. I-011
School's practice of permitting students to grade each other's work and calling out grades violates privacy law. |
Education |
|
Feb. 18, 2002 | |
|
01-3126
|
U.S. v. Distefano
Government's action to collect on defaulted student loan is not barred by statute of limitations. |
Contracts |
|
Feb. 15, 2002 | |
|
01-2261
|
Byers v. Lemaster
Order |
|
Feb. 15, 2002 | ||
|
B151669
|
Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (Guilford)
|
|
Feb. 15, 2002 | ||
|
S093526
|
Minster v. Contadina Food, Inc.
Order |
|
Feb. 15, 2002 | ||
|
A094405
|
Martin v. Szeto
|
|
Feb. 15, 2002 | ||
|
D035933
|
People v. Mason
|
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
G028079
|
People v. Haykel
Assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is not serious felony for Three Strikes purposes. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
01-1110
|
US v. $9,020.00 in US Currency
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
01-3050
|
Weaver v. Boyles
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
01-6311
|
In re Denton
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
01-3117
|
US v. Gonzales
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
01-3160 & 01-3161
|
Socophi S.P.R.L v. Airport Systems International, Inc.
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
01-7107
|
Cooper v. Saffle
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
S101964
|
Viner v. Sweet
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
S102716
|
Marriage of Drapeau
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
S102539
|
Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank
Order |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | ||
|
98-0488
|
State v. Canez
Conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder are upheld. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
D037827
|
Mark L., a Minor
Reunification services are reinstated after juvenile court improperly denied disclosures of limited information by child's therapist based on psychotherapist-patient privilege. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
C036579
|
People v. Sanchez
Unanimous jury verdict is not required for conviction for animal cruelty committed during continous course of conduct. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
B151619
|
In re Scoggins
Probation provision of Proposition 36 applies where defendant committed offense before effective date but judgment was deferred until after effective date. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
D038629
|
United Services Automobile Assn. v. Alaska Insurance Co.
Insurance company isn't entitled to indemnity or equitable subrogation from primary insurer when company's payments were made to settle bad-faith action. |
Insurance |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
S091117
|
Utility Cost Management v. Indian Wells Valley Water District
Government agency must seek refund of overcharges by public utility within 120 days that fees became effective. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 | |
|
A095728
|
Volkswagen of America Inc., v. Superior Court of San Francisco
General Order developed for complex asbestos litigation cases is not pre-empted by California Rules of Court |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 14, 2002 |