§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

13 Cited authorities

  1. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,264 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  2. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,189 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 at pages 587 through 588, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, the court, citing language from Labor Council, held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which applies to public works, for the construction of student and staff housing.

  3. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 759 times   1 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"

  4. Serrano v. Priest

    5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 534 times
    Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

  5. SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert

    162 Cal.App.4th 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 109 times
    In SC Manufactured Homes, the operative fact was whether the mobile home park had prohibited the plaintiff from selling to its tenants.

  6. Accardi v. Superior Court

    17 Cal.App.4th 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 160 times
    Holding that claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against employer based on alleged harassment was not barred by the exclusivity rule because sexual harassment was "outside the normal employment environment"

  7. Scott v. City of Indian Wells

    6 Cal.3d 541 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 130 times
    Holding that nonresident property owners had standing to challenge a conditional-use permit issued by a neighboring city because the property owners' land was adjacent to the lot subject to the conditional-use permit

  8. Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc.

    185 Cal.App.4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Describing unlawful detainer as a “summary proceeding to determine the right to possession of real property”

  9. Fifth & Broadway Partnership v. Kimny, Inc.

    102 Cal.App.3d 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 26 times
    In Fifth Broadway Partnership v. Kimny, Inc. (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 195 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 271, 7 A.L.R.4th 580], the motion to add a new defendant was made in mid-trial.

  10. Lamanna v. Vognar

    17 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4 (Cal. Super. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    17 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 501 FRANK LAMANNA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIELA VOGNAR, Defendant and Appellant. BV19686. Civ. A Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, Los Angeles July 28, 1993 COUNSEL Lisa Monk Borrino for Defendant and Appellant. Frank Lamanna, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION ROBERTSON, P. J.— Appellant challenges the judgment rendered against her in an unlawful detainer proceeding. The main thrust of appellant's appeal is that the evidence

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system