§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

25 Cited authorities

  1. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick

    60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 504 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement "must not only contain all the material terms but also express each in a reasonably definite manner."

  2. Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP

    222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 181 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California trial court's failure to "specify the factors it had considered" when deciding whether to apply fee multiplier did "not compel a reversal"

  3. Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.

    22 Cal.3d 865 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 497 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the element of intent could not be effectively isolated

  4. Banner Entm't, Inc. v. Superior Court

    62 Cal.App.4th 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 201 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding mandatory means of assenting established by two sentences: "'Until such time, if ever, as such more formal agreement i . . . concluded, this agreement when signed by the parties hereto will constitute a legal and binding obligation of the parties. Please acknowledge your approval of the foregoing terms by signing a copy of this letter in the space indicated below'"

  5. Hauter v. Zogarts

    14 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 318 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff stated a claim pursuant to Rest.2d Torts, § 402B, recognized under California law

  6. Grail Semiconductor, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.

    225 Cal.App.4th 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 74 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not err in finding that the amount the breaching party would have paid to license the technology could be used to measure damages from breach of an NDA

  7. Chambers v. Kay

    29 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 102 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that conclusion reached was consistent with a Formal Opinion

  8. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  9. Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Ass'n v. Department of Veterans Affairs

    67 Cal.App.4th 743 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 97 times
    In Fountain Valley, a homeowners association, threatening litigation against an elderly homeowner with Hodgkin's disease, gained access to the interior of his residence and demanded he remove a number of personal items, including books and papers not constituting "standard reading material," claiming the items posed a fire hazard.

  10. Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding Equip. Co.

    69 Cal.2d 452 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 180 times
    In Woodcock, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, a worker who had been physically injured in the course of employment, in the sum of $13,000.

  11. Rule 3.769 - Settlement of class actions

    Cal. R. 3.769   Cited 69 times

    (a) Court approval after hearing A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing. (b) Attorney's fees Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney's fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney's fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action

  12. Rule 3.10 - Application

    Cal. R. 3.10   Cited 7 times

    The Civil Rules apply to all civil cases in the superior courts, including general civil, family, juvenile, and probate cases, unless otherwise provided by a statute or rule in the California Rules of Court. Cal. R. Ct. 3.10 Rule 3.10 adopted effective 1/1/2007.