§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

17 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,064 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  2. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 399 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  3. Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc.

    14 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 384 times
    Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."

  4. Hirshfield v. Schwartz

    91 Cal.App.4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that a court in equity, applying the hardship doctrine, may grant an easement that effectively denies the owner the use of his property

  5. Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

    105 Cal.App.4th 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 160 times
    Deciding prong-two issue despite trial court's failure to reach it

  6. Sosinsky v. Grant

    6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 194 times
    Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

  7. McDowell v. Watson

    59 Cal.App.4th 1155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 115 times
    Stating that “injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself a cause of action”

  8. Tashakori v. Lakis

    196 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err when it failed to award any damages to the plaintiffs in compensation for the equitable easement on their property

  9. Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane

    67 Cal.App.3d 565 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 107 times
    Recognizing there is no fixed, inflexible rule for determining the measure of damages for injury to or destruction of property and whatever formula is most appropriate in a particular case will be adopted

  10. PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court

    33 Cal.App.4th 1680 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that a trial court may not sustain a demurrer to only part of a cause of action

  11. Rule 3.1 - Title

    Cal. R. 3.1

    The rules in this title may be referred to as the Civil Rules. Cal. R. Ct. 3.1 Rule 3.1 adopted effective 1/1/2007.