28 Cited authorities

  1. Lazar v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,686 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
  2. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 408 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act
  3. Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell

    10 Cal.4th 1226 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 721 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that antideficiency statutes do not preclude an action against the borrower for fraud in the inducement of the loan
  4. McBride v. Boughton

    123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 487 times
    Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery
  5. City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.

    43 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 397 times
    Holding that when "ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury"
  6. Apollo Capital Fund Llc. v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC

    158 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 311 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a securities "placement agent" employed by the issuing company was not liable because the issuing company did not transfer the securities to the plaintiffs
  7. Oakland Raiders v. National Football League

    131 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 249 times
    Finding no principal and agent relationship between the Raiders and the NFL or the Raiders and the Commissioner of the NFL, in part because there are circumstances where the NFL is obligated under its constitution to take actions adverse to its member teams
  8. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin

    53 Cal.App.4th 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 314 times
    Holding that insured's obligation to hold third party recoveries "in trust" for the insurer was no more than a "bare promise to reimburse" the insurer, and that " promise to hold property in trust for another, standing alone, will not create an equitable interest in that property"
  9. Charnay v. Cobert

    145 Cal.App.4th 170 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 196 times
    Listing the elements of fraud, including "resulting damage"
  10. Ivanoff v. Bank of Am., N.A.

    9 Cal.App.5th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 132 times
    Holding fraud claims "governed by" three-year statute of limitations