§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Summary Judgment Adjudication

undefined

13 Cited authorities

  1. Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman

    51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,331 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an attorney "may not do anything which will injuriously affect former client in any matter in which [the attorney] formerly represented [the client]"

  2. Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

    39 Cal.4th 384 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 283 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding party failed to present sufficient evidence of justifiable reliance to support fraud claim based on alleged promise of long term employment where party signed letter stating employment was at will and terminable at any time

  3. TRB Investments, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    40 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding ambiguous a contract that is "capable of two or more constructions, both of which are reasonable"

  4. Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co.

    94 Cal.App.4th 354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that "where the extrinsic evidence . . . is contested, an issue of fact arises"

  5. Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

    132 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that an offer of judgment to waive a claim for costs made after summary adjudication of one of two of the plaintiff's claims was valid

  6. Cal. Pub. Records Research, Inc. v. Cnty. of Yolo

    4 Cal.App.5th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 32 times
    Ruling on demurrer did not prevent court from making contrary ruling on motion for summary judgment

  7. Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court

    227 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Paramount, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in reconsidering a prior order denying a motion for summary judgment without giving the parties an opportunity to provide further oral or written argument before issuing a new ruling.

  8. Leep v. American Ship Managemant

    126 Cal.App.4th 1028 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 14 times

    No. B173066 February 14, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NC040499, Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Preston Easley for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kaye, Rose Maltzman; Elsa M. Ward and Aksana Moshaiv for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. Plaintiff and appellant Ernest Leep (appellant) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent American Ship Management, LLC (respondent) in appellant's action for unearned wages. Appellant claims that he was

  9. Melorich Builders, Inc. v. Superior Court

    160 Cal.App.3d 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 28 times
    Setting forth essential elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

  10. Hepp v. Lockheed-California Co.

    86 Cal.App.3d 714 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 32 times
    In Hepp v. Lockheed-California Co. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 714, this reasoning was extended to policies regarding nonmonetary employment benefits.

  11. Rule 3.1354 - Written objections to evidence

    Cal. R. 3.1354   Cited 160 times

    (a) Time for filing and service of objections Unless otherwise excused by the court on a showing of good cause, all written objections to evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be served and filed at the same time as the objecting party's opposition or reply papers are served and filed. (b) Format of objections All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to