§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

18 Cited authorities

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

    7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,159 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 717 times   3 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. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 704 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"

  4. Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

    223 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 213 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

  5. AAS v. SUPERIOR COURT

    24 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 275 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding diminished value of residences containing hazardous defects not compensable

  6. 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”

  7. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.

    185 Cal.App.3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 158 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

  8. United Guar. Mortg. Indem. Co. v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

    660 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 81 times
    Finding the plaintiff's negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims barred by the economic loss rule where "the alleged misrepresentations are not conceptually distinct from the contract"

  9. Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC

    44 Cal.App.5th 1125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 53 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. Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc.

    129 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 68 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party to the plaintiff's contract cannot be liable" for various business torts, including interference with prospective economic advantage