§Why CasetextPricing

Order After Hearing POS

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. Crowley v. Katleman

    8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 607 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suit for malicious prosecution lies for bringing an action charging multiple grounds of liability when some but not all of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause"

  2. West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

    214 Cal.App.4th 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 311 times
    Holding plaintiff could not satisfy adverse claim element of quiet title where defendant no longer had interest in the property

  3. Apollo Capital Fund Llc. v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC

    158 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 311 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  4. US Ecology, Inc. v. State

    129 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 303 times
    Holding that causation is an element of a promissory estoppel claim

  5. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.

    211 Cal.App.4th 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 144 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that actions to avoid enforcement of contractual rights qualify

  6. Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co.

    140 Cal.App.4th 1395 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 130 times
    Concluding that defendants' retention of profits supported a claim for conversion

  7. J.L. v. Children's Institute

    177 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ostensible agency can only be established based on "the statements or acts of the principal"

  8. Laks v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

    60 Cal.App.3d 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 187 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in an action for promissory estoppel, experienced businessmen could not reasonably rely on an ambiguous commitment to loan money

  9. Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp.

    242 Cal.App.4th 1166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 41 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In 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.

  10. Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co.

    61 Cal.2d 638 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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