§Why CasetextPricing

Response Reply

undefined

7 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,919 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank

    102 Cal.App.4th 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 284 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial court erred in considering matters raised for the first time in a reply on a motion for summary judgment

  3. Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc.

    186 Cal.App.4th 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bozzi, it was error for an expert to testify that a design or maintenance defect caused an elevator to stop abruptly during a power outage.

  4. Fenn v. Sherriff

    109 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that a court may award custody to a third party, absent a showing of parental unfitness, “based on a clear showing that such award is essential to avert harm to the child”

  5. Varshock v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection

    194 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 42 times
    Finding a latent ambiguity in a statute in part due to potential conflict with a separate statute in a different code

  6. Great American Ins. Companies v. Gordon Trucking, Inc.

    165 Cal.App.4th 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 33 times

    No. F053336. July 29, 2008. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I., II.C., II.D. and II.E. of the discussion. Appeal from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, Nos. 343874 and 348134, David G. Vander Wall, Judge. Law Office of Richard T. Ferko and Richard T. Ferko for Plaintiff and Appellant. Crabtree, Schmidt Jacobs and Michael R. Dennis for Defendants and

  7. Rule 3.1300 - Time for filing and service of motion papers

    Cal. R. 3.1300   Cited 98 times

    (a) In general Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and, when applicable, the statutes and rules providing for electronic filing and service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2007.) (b) Order shortening time The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening time supported