Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,917 times 2 Legal AnalysesConcluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
Reid v. Google, Inc.
50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,102 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”
People v. Pearson
56 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2013) Cited 672 timesFinding no forfeiture of Crawford claim arising in trial conducted eight years before Crawford was decided
Brown v. Ransweiler
171 Cal.App.4th 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 360 timesHolding that if an officer's "use of . . . force [was] objectively reasonable under the circumstances," then the officer "met his duty to use reasonable care . . . and, as a matter of law, cannot be found to have been negligent in this regard"
Jackson v. County of Los Angeles
60 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 366 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply when: " the same party has taken two positions; the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); the two positions are totally inconsistent; and the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake."
La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.
9 Cal.4th 27 (Cal. 1994) Cited 207 timesHolding that a workers compensation carrier has no duty to defend an employees civil suit for damages
Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
112 Cal.App.4th 950 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 77 timesHolding government tort immunity did not bar claim for interest
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
6 Cal.App.5th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 49 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Newport Harbor, the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion within 60 days of the filing of plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which contained two causes of action previously pleaded in earlier complaints based on the settlement of an unlawful detainer action.
Collins v. Hertz Corp.
144 Cal.App.4th 64 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 59 times 2 Legal AnalysesStriking portions of a separate statement
Christina C. v. County of Orange
220 Cal.App.4th 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 40 timesHolding that the plaintiff's failure to raise a theory pleaded in the complaint in opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motion resulted in a forfeiture of that theory on appeal
Section 15710 - Definitions
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 15710The following definitions are applicable to this group. Terms not defined here but used in the Labor Code shall have their meaning as so used. All references to the code or to code sections refer to the California Labor Code unless otherwise stated. (a) Prima facie illegally uninsured. In addition to examples provided in the code, an employer against which there is any evidence from which, after considering any contradicting evidence except any testimony or statements by the employer or related persons
Section 15203.7 - Documentation of Consent to Self-Insure and Notice to Employees of Self-Insured Status
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 15203.7(a) The original Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure or a copy of the original Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure issued to each private individual self-insured employer or public self-insured employer shall be prominently displayed at the self-insurer's principal place of business in California. (b) Notice to employees of workers' compensation coverage as required by Labor Code Section 3550 shall be accomplished by display of a copy of the self-insurer's Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure
Section 15565 - Posting Notice of Workers' Compensation Carrier
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 15565Each employer is required to post a notice of his workers' compensation carrier at his headquarters or branch office together with the date of the expiration of his policy and the telephone number of the nearest office of the Labor Commissioner so that employees may call to report expiration of such coverage (as required by Labor Code Section 3713). Failure to post such notice is a misdemeanor. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 8, § 15565 Note: Authority cited: Sections 55 and 3710, Labor Code. Reference: Sections
Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication
Cal. R. 3.1350 Cited 230 times(a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication
Rule 3.1354 - Written objections to evidence
Cal. R. 3.1354 Cited 158 times(a) Time for filing and service of objections Unless otherwise excused by the court on a showing of good cause, all written objections to evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be served and filed at the same time as the objecting party's opposition or reply papers are served and filed. (b) Format of objections All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to