§Why CasetextPricing

Minute Order

undefined

32 Cited authorities

  1. Flatley v. Mauro

    39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,335 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP protection is not available where the "assertedly protected speech or petition activity [is] illegal as a matter of law"

  2. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,071 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  3. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

  4. City of Stockton v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 670 times
    Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

  5. Silberg v. Anderson

    50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,035 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the litigation privilege applied, even after the finality of a marriage dissolution decree, to an attorney who made statements during a marriage dissolution proceeding

  6. Potter v. Firestone Tire &

    6 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 869 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding outrageous conduct exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community

  7. Paterno v. State

    74 Cal.App.4th 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 692 times
    Affirming first jury's verdict rejecting this theory

  8. 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

  9. McBride v. Boughton

    123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 487 times
    Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery

  10. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 717 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"

  11. Rule 3.1113 - Memorandum

    Cal. R. 3.1113   Cited 102 times

    (a) Memorandum in support of motion A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported. (b) Contents of memorandum The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments

  12. Rule 3.1300 - Time for filing and service of motion papers

    Cal. R. 3.1300   Cited 98 times

    (a) In general Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and, when applicable, the statutes and rules providing for electronic filing and service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2007.) (b) Order shortening time The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening time supported