§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

33 Cited authorities

  1. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,692 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  2. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,272 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  3. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,196 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 at pages 587 through 588, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, the court, citing language from Labor Council, held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which applies to public works, for the construction of student and staff housing.

  4. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 766 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

  5. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 552 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

  6. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 331 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion

  7. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors

    48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 326 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding trails agreement not separate agreement but subsequent activity encompassed in original project

  8. Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.

    24 Cal.3d 773 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 401 times
    Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"

  9. Ivanoff v. Bank of Am., N.A.

    9 Cal.App.5th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 132 times
    Holding fraud claims "governed by" three-year statute of limitations

  10. Grosset v. Wenaas

    42 Cal.4th 1100 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 155 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Noting that as a general matter, "[t]he fundamental purpose of a derivative action is to provide a means by which a stockholder may seek to enforce the rights of a corporation when the corporate board refuses to do so. . . . [Thus, i]f successful, a derivative claim will accrue to the direct benefit of the corporation and not to the stockholder who litigated it."