§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

15 Cited authorities

  1. People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 571 times

    S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief

  2. Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP

    214 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that when the plaintiff neither alleges nor argues facts from which the assignment might be inferred to be invalid, and the judicially noticed facts contradict the conclusory allegations, those allegations may be disregarded

  3. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle

    178 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 206 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Ruling on a demurrer

  4. Cansino v. Bank of America

    224 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that a representation that a home would appreciate in value was a prediction about the future and thus could not support a fraud claim

  5. Deveny v. Entropin Inc.

    139 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that the sham pleading doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff's explanation of newly discovered evidence was plausible and the complaint was based on numerous other allegations besides those omitted

  6. Casterson v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 102 times
    In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.

  7. Yee v. Cheung

    220 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses

    D060989 2013-10-4 CHEONG YU YEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Don CHEUNG et al., Defendants and Respondents. See 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 1019 et seq.APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. 37–2011–00090446–CU–NP–CTL) AARON Affirmed. See 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 1019 et seq. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed

  8. Knox v. Dean

    205 Cal.App.4th 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth elements of breach of fiduciary duty claim under California law

  9. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  10. Bach v. McNelis

    207 Cal.App.3d 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 82 times
    Noting that "lthough a court is authorized to take judicial notice in connection with a demurrer, it may not judicially notice the truth of assertions in declarations or affidavits filed in court proceedings" and clarifying that the same applied to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, because " motion on judgment on the pleadings 'is made on the same grounds, and is decided on the same basis, as a general demurrer' "