§Why CasetextPricing

15 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 408 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  2. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 217 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  3. Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC

    231 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  4. Flores v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

    224 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 46 times
    Instructing 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"

  5. Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade

    108 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 55 times

    A099453 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

  6. Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

    208 Cal.App.4th 1125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 39 times
    In 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.

  7. Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.

    237 Cal.App.4th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Centex Homes v. St. Paul, 237 Cal.App.4th 23 (2015), the developer argued that the insurer was required to appoint independent counsel.

  8. Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal Com.

    9 Cal.App.4th 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    In 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.

  9. Salazar v. Matejcek

    245 Cal.App.4th 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A144106 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

  10. Excelsior College v. Board of Registered Nursing

    136 Cal.App.4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that alleged burden on out-of-state college whose distance learning program did not comply with California nursing-program requirements was clearly outweighed by benefit to state citizens of insuring a minimum level of competency in nurses

  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.