§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

28 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 408 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  2. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 217 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  3. San Diego Gas Electric Co. v. Superior Court

    13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 301 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a negligence claim would be barred by Section 1759 because "an award of damages on that theory would plainly undermine the commission's policy by holding the utility liable for not doing what the commission has repeatedly determined that it and all similarly situated utilities were not required to do."

  4. Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Ass'n v. McMullin

    4 Cal.App.5th 982 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 156 times
    Noting as a " 'general rule, theories not raised in the trial court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal' "

  5. Serrano v. Priest

    5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 538 times
    Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

  6. Red Mntn. v. Fallbrook

    143 Cal.App.4th 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 126 times
    Noting court's discretion to disregard party's technical noncompliance under former California Rules of Court, rule 14(e)(C)

  7. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.

    123 Cal.App.3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that an entitlement to future possession is insufficient to maintain an action for conversion

  8. Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc.

    17 Cal.App.5th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Victory Consultants, we applied the Pruneyard balancing test at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis to determine whether the plaintiff's cause of action arose from protected conduct under section 425.16. (Victory Consultants, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 258.)

  9. McBride v. Smith

    18 Cal.App.5th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 50 times

    A147931 01-04-2018 Kathleen D. MCBRIDE, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Byron C. SMITH et al., Defendants and Respondents. Buchalter Nemer, Buchalter, James R. Rose, Saint Helena, Katherine H. Falace for Appellant Coombs & Dunlap, Brian L. DeWitt, Daniel D. Hardy, Napa, for Respondent RUVOLO, P. J. Buchalter Nemer, Buchalter, James R. Rose, Saint Helena, Katherine H. Falace for Appellant Coombs & Dunlap, Brian L. DeWitt, Daniel D. Hardy, Napa, for Respondent RUVOLO, P. J. I. INTRODUCTION

  10. Tashakori v. Lakis

    196 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err when it failed to award any damages to the plaintiffs in compensation for the equitable easement on their property