§Why CasetextPricing

Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc., Appellant,v.General Motors LLC, Respondent.

Brief

51 Cited authorities

  1. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 388 times   1 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

  2. New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.

    439 U.S. 96 (1978)   Cited 211 times
    Recognizing State interest in regulating dealer-manufacturer relationship

  3. Kim v. Sumitomo Bank

    17 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 311 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the existence of a fiduciary relationship between a bank and borrower

  4. Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw

    14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 239 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interpretive policies contained in 1989 DLSE Manual were void regulations because they were not promulgated in accordance with Administrative Procedures Act; and that insofar as void regulations reflected the DLSE's statutory interpretations, those interpretations were entitled to no deference

  5. Engel v. CBS, Inc.

    93 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that the special injury requirement in wrongful civil proceedings does not require the actual imposition of a provisional remedy; what is required is "some concrete harm that is considerably more cumbersome than the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending a lawsuit"

  6. Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises

    217 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 192 times
    In Neighbours, the court noted that section 2750.5 may occasionally "create a dual employment situation in which one employer is granted immunity from a personal injury action at law even though the employer's insurer is not responsible for payment of workers' compensation benefits to the injured employee...."

  7. Blue Cross v. Philip Morris

    3 N.Y.3d 200 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 117 times
    Holding "that a third-party payer has no standing to bring an action under [GBL section] 349 because its claims are too remote" and "that what is required [under section 349] is that the party actually injured be the one to bring suit"

  8. American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh

    10 Cal.App.4th 1446 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 147 times
    Refusing to consider the plaintiff's request to treat its appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief because that request "was not made in its opening brief, but was raised for the first time in its reply brief," thus "depriv[ing] the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument"

  9. McElroy v. United States

    455 U.S. 642 (1982)   Cited 57 times
    Rejecting a narrow reading of § 2314 that was at odds with Congress' "broad purpose" and that would "undercut sharply . . . federal prosecutors in their effort to combat crime in interstate commerce"

  10. Petereit v. S.B. Thomas, Inc.

    63 F.3d 1169 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that a constructive termination claim requires proof of a "substantial decline in franchisee net income"

  11. Section 463 - Unfair business practices by franchisors

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 463   Cited 46 times
    Providing that a franchisor may not "refuse to accept a return of" a terminated franchisee's inventory and must pay fair and reasonable compensation when repurchasing the inventory

  12. Rule 2.108 - Spacing and numbering of lines

    Cal. R. 2.108   Cited 4 times

    The spacing and numbering of lines on a page must be as follows: (1) The lines on each page must be one and one-half spaced or double-spaced and numbered consecutively. (2) Descriptions of real property may be single-spaced. (3) Footnotes, quotations, and printed forms of corporate surety bonds and undertakings may be single-spaced and have unnumbered lines if they comply generally with the space requirements of rule 2.111. (4) Line numbers must be placed at the left margin and separated from the