§Why CasetextPricing

Respondent s Brief

undefined

12 Cited authorities

  1. Denham v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 4,391 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the well settled principle that on appeal, "[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown"

  2. Profes'l Engineers v. Kempton

    40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 167 times
    In Kempton we concluded that both Government Code sections 14101 and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35. (Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1037-1041.)

  3. Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc.

    217 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 127 times
    In Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1110, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 (2013), the court held that a defendant and its alleged alter-ego were in fact part of a single business enterprise, and that it would be inequitable to uphold their separate corporate status because the two business entities had structured their financial operations in such a way that left the defendant with no funds to pay its liabilities.

  4. Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Zara

    199 Cal.App.4th 383 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 98 times
    Stating that "an individual may be served by substitute service only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint 'cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered' to the individual defendant"

  5. Luz v. Lopes

    55 Cal.2d 54 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 220 times
    In Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54 (Luz), the court stated: "[I]t is and has been the law of this state that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced."

  6. Larson v. City and County of San Francisco

    192 Cal.App.4th 1263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 43 times
    In Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1301, Division One of this court concluded that one of the specified forms of tenant harassment—section 37.10B, subdivision (a)(7)—unconstitutionally infringes First Amendment speech rights.

  7. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Ham

    216 Cal.App.4th 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 32 times
    Stating "the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the individual defendant . . . two or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as reasonable diligence."

  8. Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital

    24 Cal.App.4th 1521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    In Caldwell, the appellate court held the lower court's conclusion that the defendant "failed to act diligently" was not an abuse of discretion.

  9. Nork v. Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises, Inc.

    73 Cal.App.3d 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 30 times
    Listing proper equitable defenses to an unlawful detainer action brought for failure to pay rent

  10. Fox v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

    94 Cal.App.3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that a finance charge assessed when a credit card holder fails timely to make a payment is not usurious as it is only because of the customer's voluntary act in failing to make the payment when due that a finance charge is levied