§Why CasetextPricing

Notice Entry of Order

undefined

21 Cited authorities

  1. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.

    7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,185 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no separate cause of action for civil conspiracy, and that to establish such an action, a plaintiff must show some other underlying tort or civil wrong

  2. Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 766 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."

  3. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 622 times   2 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

  4. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 717 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between advertisers of cereal and consumers because "it is unnecessary to call upon the law of fiduciary relationships to perform a function for which it was not designed and is largely unsuited"

  5. Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

    223 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of UCL cause of action against attorney where attorney's violation of Rule 3-310 was alleged as a fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful act, but plaintiff failed to allege causation of damage from that violation

  6. AAS v. SUPERIOR COURT

    24 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 280 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding diminished value of residences containing hazardous defects not compensable

  7. Oakdale Village Group v. Fong

    43 Cal.App.4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Noting that “[c]onversion is ... a strict liability tort”

  8. Poseidon Dev., Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC

    152 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 125 times
    Finding that a late charge for nonpayment of final balloon payment on a promissory note was an unenforceable penalty because, based on the contractual language, the late charge was only intended to be applied to the late installment payments rather than the final balloon payment

  9. Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC

    44 Cal.App.5th 1125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Califia, the plaintiff challenged under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA the inclusion of the phrase “No Sugar Added” on the label of tangerine juice, and argued that statement was misleading because it implied competing products did contain added sugar, and that the juice in question contained less sugar than competing brands that did not have “No Sugar Added” on their labels.

  10. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.

    185 Cal.App.3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that to state a prima facie case for breach of express warranty a plaintiff must allege that the breach of warranty proximately caused an injury