Apollo Capital Fund Llc. v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC
158 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 314 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that a securities "placement agent" employed by the issuing company was not liable because the issuing company did not transfer the securities to the plaintiffs
J.L. v. Children's Institute
177 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 90 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that ostensible agency can only be established based on "the statements or acts of the principal"
Fleet v. Bank of America N.A.
229 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 56 timesHolding that the plaintiffs “alleged facts that could support a cause of action for promissory estoppel against [Bank of America] in the event that they cannot establish a cause of action for breach of contract”
Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp.
242 Cal.App.4th 1166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 41 times 4 Legal AnalysesIn Hot Rods, the court observed that it was "clear from the entirety of the contract" that a "primary concern" of one party was the property's environmental condition, and the contract accordingly permitted it to conduct diligence and included representations by the counterparty regarding environmental conditions. 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 65.
Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co.
61 Cal.2d 638 (Cal. 1964) Cited 122 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding under facts of that case that an insurer can be held liable to an insured on an estoppel theory for representations made by insurer's attorney concerning existence of coverage and on which insured relied in dispensing with the services of his personal attorney in the underlying action and permitting counsel selected by the insurer to defend him
In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill
61 Cal.2d 21 (Cal. 1964) Cited 84 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Bunker Hill, after stating that the trial court should apply the substantial evidence rule when reviewing a redevelopment decision, the California Supreme Court did not expressly state the applicable standard of appellate review, but it affirmed the trial court's decision that substantial evidence existed, holding that the trial court's decision was supported by the record.
Security Officers Service, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund
17 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 30 times 1 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that failure "to handle claims `properly' or `expediently' might constitute a breach of a policy's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but not a breach of contract terms that merely establish an unspecified "duty to defend"
Diede Construction, Inc. v. Monterey Mechanical Co.
125 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 3 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. A102035 December 28, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of Alameda County, No. V-020416-7, Julia Spain, Judge. Bien Summers, E. Elizabeth Summers, Elliot Bien and Ray Thomas Rockwell for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bell, Rosenberg Hughes, Roger M. Hughes and Teresa Jenkins Main for Construction Employers' Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. McInerney Dillon and Timothy L. McInerney for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION POLLAK, J. (1) Plaintiff Diede Construction,
Kelley v. R.F. Jones Co.
272 Cal.App.2d 113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) Cited 16 timesHolding that an executed oral modification of a written contract is binding, even if the contract expressly provides that it can be modified only in writing
Whittaker v. Otto
188 Cal.App.2d 619 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961) Cited 14 timesHolding that agent's relationship to his principal is essentially fiduciary in character and in dealing with his principal he is bound to principles of good faith and honesty