§Why CasetextPricing

Motion For Reconsideration

Motion

8 Cited authorities

  1. Crowley v. Katleman

    8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 609 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suit for malicious prosecution lies for bringing an action charging multiple grounds of liability when some but not all of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause"

  2. In re Marriage of Barthold

    158 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 94 times
    Affirming a trial court's authority to grant reconsideration of a prior order based on a motion filed in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008

  3. Stratton v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co.

    210 Cal.App.3d 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 138 times
    Noting court retained jurisdiction to hear a motion for reconsideration after granting summary judgment in favor of two defendants against plaintiff and another defendant because, unlike in the instant case or in APRI or Ramon, no judgment had been entered before the trial court ruled on the motion for reconsideration

  4. Brown v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.3d 477 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 102 times
    Holding FEHA special venue provisions govern as to all claims brought in a FEHA case

  5. J.J. v. Cnty. of San Diego

    No. D062594 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2014)

    D062594 02-14-2014 J.J., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Respondent. Elaine L. Heine for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and David G. Axtmann, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. BENKE CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00098644-CU-PT-CTL) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William R. Nevitt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Elaine L. Heine for Plaintiffs and

  6. Streicher v. Tommy's Electric Co.

    164 Cal.App.3d 876 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    In Streicher v. Tommy's Electric Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 876, the plaintiff sued a general contractor and subcontractor after a radio-controlled overhead garage door accidentally opened, causing him to fall from some scaffolding.

  7. Franklin v. Franklin

    67 Cal.App.2d 717 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)   Cited 34 times
    In Franklin v. Franklin (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 717 [ 155 P.2d 637], which held that a husband's cause of action for personal injuries is not considered "property" for community division in a divorce action, the court stated (at p. 725), "the word `property,' as used in the code sections relating to community property, does not encompass every property right acquired by either husband or wife during marriage.... The right to practice medicine and similar professions, for instance, is a property right but it is not one which could be classed as community property."

  8. Washington v. Washington

    47 Cal.2d 249 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13 times
    In Washington v. Washington (1956) 47 Cal.2d 249 [ 302 P.2d 569], we held that while personal injury awards recovered during marriage might be classified as community property, a cause of action for such injury becomes the injured spouse's separate property when the cause has not been reduced to judgment prior to the date of divorce.