§Why CasetextPricing

Response Reply

undefined

22 Cited authorities

  1. Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service

    81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 484 times
    Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim

  2. Jordache Enterprises v. Brobeck, Phleger Harrison

    18 Cal.4th 739 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 332 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statute of limitations is tolled until occurrence of actual injury

  3. Oaks Management v. Superior Court

    145 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that absent special circumstances, a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender

  4. Budd v. Nixen

    6 Cal.3d 195 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 376 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the limitations period for an attorney malpractice claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff has suffered appreciable and actual harm

  5. Jones v. H.F. Ahmanson Co.

    1 Cal.3d 93 (Cal. 1969)   Cited 351 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding "majority shareholders . . . have a fiduciary responsibility to the minority and to the corporation to use their ability to control the corporation in a fair, just, and equitable manner"

  6. Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp

    123 Cal.App.4th 1179 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 123 times
    Noting that the breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the attorney abandons the former client, not when he represents the new client

  7. Truong v. Glasser

    181 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 106 times
    Finding the court's power to deny a motion for summary judgment due to failure to comply with formatting requirements is "discretionary, not mandatory"

  8. Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price

    183 Cal.App.4th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 85 times
    Holding legal disability includes absence from the state

  9. Granewich v. Harding

    329 Or. 47 (Or. 1999)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that section 876(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts defines a cognizable claim under Oregon law

  10. Schuster v. Gardner

    127 Cal.App.4th 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 86 times
    Concluding that, applying either California or Delaware law, claim was derivative one brought on behalf of Delaware corporation for which the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue

  11. Section 340.6 - Attorney's wrongful act or omission in performance of professional services

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6   Cited 598 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that limitations period on plaintiff's legal malpractice action did not begin until plaintiff had suffered "appreciable harm" and "mere breach of . . . duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm— not yet realized—does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence"