State v. Superior Court
32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) Cited 1,394 timesHolding that "failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action"
Allen v. City of Sacramento
234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 408 timesHolding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act
Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC
231 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 68 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that to aid and abet a breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must plead that the defendant had actual knowledge of the breach and provided substantial assistance or encouragement in it
Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co.
135 Cal.App.4th 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 74 timesHolding that the court's analysis requires a comparison of the factual allegations in the original and amended complaints
Flores v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
224 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 46 timesInstructing the trial court to enter judgment of dismissal nunc pro tunc "[t]o promote the orderly administration of justice, and to avoid the useless waste of judicial and litigant time that would result from dismissing the appeal merely to have a judgment formally entered in the trial court and a new appeal filed"
Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade
108 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 55 timesA099453 Filed April 25, 2003 APPEAL from San Mateo County Superior Court, Robert D. Foiles, Judge. Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos Rudy and Michael A. Duncheon, Joan L. Cassman and Stephen B. Peck for Appellants. Fogarty Watson and Mark C. Watson and Dennis Scott Zell, Janet Fogarty Associates and Dennis Scott Zell for Respondents. GEMELLO, J. Does a city elections official have authority to refuse to certify an initiative petition based on extrinsic evidence relating to the manner of its circulation
Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
208 Cal.App.4th 1125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 39 timesIn Lickiss, the court held the provisions of FINRA's distinct rule 2080 only govern the circumstances under which FINRA will waive its right to participate in third party judicial or arbitral proceedings involving customer disputes and in which expungement has been sought by a FINRA member; contrary to FINRA's contention in Lickiss, the waiver of notice and service standards set forth in rule 2080 do not govern the substantive principles of equity, which a court must apply in determining whether such expungement is appropriate.
Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
237 Cal.App.4th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 21 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Centex Homes v. St. Paul, 237 Cal.App.4th 23 (2015), the developer argued that the insurer was required to appoint independent counsel.
Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal Com.
9 Cal.App.4th 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 51 timesIn Patrick Media, a landowner wanted to develop a large hotel complex, and one of the conditions placed on the development of the complex was the elimination of three billboards on the property, which had been leased to an advertising company.
Salazar v. Matejcek
245 Cal.App.4th 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 10 times 1 Legal AnalysesA144106 03-10-2016 Ernesto A. SALAZAR, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Ross MATEJCEK, Defendant and Appellant. Carter, Momsen & Knight, PC, Brian S. Momsen, Alexander C. Rich, Ukiah, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants Ernesto A. Salazar, Jr., et al. Brigham Law Office, Thomas S. Brigham, Brooke A. Brigham, Ukiah, Counsel for Defendant and Appellant Ross Matejcek. DONDERO, J. Carter, Momsen & Knight, PC, Brian S. Momsen, Alexander C. Rich, Ukiah, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants