§Why CasetextPricing

Hearing Demurrer

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 613 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"

  2. San Diego Gas Electric Co. v. Superior Court

    13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 298 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a negligence claim would be barred by Section 1759 because "an award of damages on that theory would plainly undermine the commission's policy by holding the utility liable for not doing what the commission has repeatedly determined that it and all similarly situated utilities were not required to do."

  3. Melton v. Boustred

    183 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding property owner could not have reasonably foreseen assaults by third parties attending party owner publicized on internet

  4. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 79 times
    Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

  5. Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co.

    234 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to adopt the PUC's view that § 1759 barred the action

  6. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  7. Hartwell Corporation v. Superior Court

    27 Cal.4th 256 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 65 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Ct., 27 Cal.4th 256, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 38 P.3d 1098 (2002), the California Supreme Court considered an allegation that public utilities provided unhealthy drinking water.

  8. Duggal v. G.E. Capital Commc'ns Servs.

    81 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 50 times
    Finding common law claims preempted by "filed rate doctrine"

  9. Waters v. Pacific Tel. Co.

    12 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding damage action for negligence in providing telephone service conflicted with PUC-approved tariff limiting telephone customer to credit allowance for improper service

  10. LeFebvre v. Edison

    244 Cal.App.4th 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    In Lefebvre v. Southern California Edison (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 143, 145, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 114 (Lefebvre), the other case Maximus's counsel raised at oral argument, a plaintiff filed a putative class action against a regulated utility claiming it had fraudulently enrolled ineligible customers in an assistance program for low-income electricity and gas customers, causing the surcharge imposed on other ratepayers to be higher than it should be.