§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nestle v. City of Santa Monica

    6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 466 times
    In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.

  2. Atkinson v. Elk Corp.

    109 Cal.App.4th 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 103 times
    Finding shingles were not consumer goods within the version of the Act operative at that time

  3. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court

    213 Cal.App.3d 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 37 times
    In Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048, the court concluded the amendment would not prejudice the defendant.

  4. Hirsa v. Superior Court

    118 Cal.App.3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 25 times
    In Hirsa the reviewing court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include an additional cause of action against a previously named defendant, based on the same general set of facts.

  5. Morgan v. Superior Court

    172 Cal.App.2d 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 33 times

    Docket No. 23960. July 31, 1959. PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to permit the filing of an amendment to a divorce complaint. Writ granted. Butterworth Smith for Petitioner. Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and William E. Lamoreaux, Assistant County Counsel, for Respondents. Miller, Vandegrift, Middleton Sackin for Real Party in Interest. NOURSE, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Petitioner is the plaintiff in an action for

  6. Estate of Hunter

    194 Cal.App.2d 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 6 times

    Docket No. 19785. August 18, 1961. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County confirming a probate sale of real property. William W. Jacka, Judge. Affirmed. Ronald H. Maas for Appellant. Delmas, Berwick Vatuone and Emery J. Delmas for Respondent. SHOEMAKER, J. This is an appeal from an order confirming a probate sale of real property. Appellant William Ward and his sister, Frances Ward Anschen, heirs and legatees of Lydia A. Hunter, the decedent, filed objections to the confirmation

  7. Guidery v. Green

    95 Cal. 630 (Cal. 1892)   Cited 48 times
    In Guidery v. Green, 95 Cal. 630, 633, 30 P. 786, 787, the court said: 'It can very rarely happen that a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleading so that he may properly present his case * * *.' The same language is repeated in Crosby v. Clark, 132 Cal. 1, 8, 63 P. 1022, and in Carter v. Lothian, 133 Cal. 451, 452, 65 P. 962.

  8. Nolan Bros. Shoe Co. v. Nolan

    131 Cal. 271 (Cal. 1900)   Cited 8 times

    S.F. No. 1455. December 31, 1900. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting an injunction. J.M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. W.S. Goodfellow, and James L. Robison, for Appellant. The use of tags by P.F. Nolan falsely indicating and representing that the business conducted by him was owned and conducted by a corporation, was a fraud on the public, by which he could not acquire any right. (Coleman etc. Co. v. Dannenberg