§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

45 Cited authorities

  1. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,946 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  2. Rusheen v. Cohen

    37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

  3. Hughes v. Pair

    46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 995 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

  4. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,083 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  5. People v. Foster

    50 Cal.4th 1301 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 550 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that because "trespass is a lesser related offense, not a lesser included offense, of burglary," the court had no sua sponte duty to deliver the instruction

  6. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 622 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

  7. Christensen v. Superior Court

    54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 700 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains

  8. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert Oliker

    47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 712 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question for the probable cause analysis in a malicious prosecution action is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable

  9. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun

    32 Cal.4th 336 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 342 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding oral or written extrinsic evidence may not be introduced "to vary, alter or add to the terms of an integrated written instrument," but only "to explain the meaning of a written contract . . . [if] the meaning urged is one to which the written contract terms are reasonably susceptible"

  10. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 613 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"

  11. Section 1714 - Responsibility injury occasioned by want of ordinary care or skill in management of property or person; firearms and ammunition not exempted

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714   Cited 1,330 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Requiring all persons to use ordinary care to prevent injuries as the result of their conduct

  12. Section 4100 - Common interest development

    Cal. Civ. Code § 4100   Cited 30 times

    "Common interest development" means any of the following: (a) A community apartment project. (b) A condominium project. (c) A planned development. (d) A stock cooperative. Ca. Civ. Code § 4100 Added by Stats 2012 ch 180 (AB 805),s 2, eff. 1/1/2013, op. 1/1/2014.

  13. Section 17910.5 - Prohibited terms and abbreviations

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17910.5   Cited 10 times

    (a) No person shall adopt any fictitious business name which includes "Corporation," "Corp.," "Incorporated," or "Inc." unless that person is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of this state or some other jurisdiction. (b) No person shall adopt any fictitious business name that includes "Limited Liability Company" or "LLC" or "LC" unless that person is a limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of this state or some other jurisdiction. A person is not prohibited from using

  14. Section 6534 - Common interest development

    Cal. Civ. Code § 6534   Cited 2 times

    "Common interest development" means any of the following: (a) A condominium project. (b) A planned development. (c) A stock cooperative. Ca. Civ. Code § 6534 Added by Stats 2013 ch 605 (SB 752),s 21, eff. 1/1/2014.

  15. Section 6531 - Commercial or industrial common interest development

    Cal. Civ. Code § 6531

    A "commercial or industrial common interest development" means a common interest development that is limited to industrial or commercial uses by law or by a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that has been recorded in the official records of each county in which the common interest development is located. For the purposes of this section, "commercial use" includes, but is not limited to, the operation of a business that provides facilities for the overnight stay of its customers