§Why CasetextPricing

Declaration

undefined

6 Cited authorities

  1. Valley Forge College v. Americans United

    454 U.S. 464 (1982)   Cited 5,028 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"

  2. Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.

    62 Cal.4th 919 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 812 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that wrongful foreclosure plaintiffs have standing to challenge void assignments of notes and deeds of trust , but not assignments that are merely voidable

  3. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 402 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  4. DeBrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

    204 Cal.App.4th 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that the foreclosing party need not possess the promissory note

  5. Batt v. City & County of San Francisco

    155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that accounting "is not an independent cause of action but merely a type of remedy, an equitable remedy at that"

  6. McWilliams v. City of Long Beach

    56 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 72 times
    In Long, for example, the court found that the defendant had solicited business in California (the forum state) not only because he called the plaintiff in California and entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff would recruit players for the defendant but also because the defendant entered into that agreement in order to develop a “presence” in California.