28 Cited authorities

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,562 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,021 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"
Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998) Cited 754 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.
171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 331 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing
United States v. Causby
328 U.S. 256 (1946) Cited 689 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding taking occurred where Army occupied airspace above plaintiff's land for limited periods of takeoff and landing
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.
39 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1985) Cited 461 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to add an alter ego theory
Goodman v. Kennedy
18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976) Cited 606 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"
Hensler v. City of Glendale
8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) Cited 301 times 2 Legal Analyses
Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"
Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Auth.
31 Cal.4th 1175 (Cal. 2003) Cited 222 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care" other than the general duty of ordinary care found in California Civil Code § 1714
Leek v. Cooper
194 Cal.App.4th 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 171 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "allegation that a person owns all of the corporate stock and makes all of the management decisions is insufficient to cause the court to disregard the corporate entity"

Demurrer Without Motion To Strike

28 Cited authorities

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

Holding taking occurred where Army occupied airspace above plaintiff's land for limited periods of takeoff and landing

Holding that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to add an alter ego theory

Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"

Holding that "direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care" other than the general duty of ordinary care found in California Civil Code § 1714

Holding "allegation that a person owns all of the corporate stock and makes all of the management decisions is insufficient to cause the court to disregard the corporate entity"