C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District
53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012) Cited 211 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Provost v. Regents of the Univ. of California
201 Cal.App.4th 1289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 209 timesRejecting arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief
John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist.
48 Cal.3d 438 (Cal. 1989) Cited 248 timesHolding that individual instances of sexual harassment of students by teachers does not impute liability to the school districts under the doctrine of respondeat superior
Perez v. Golden Empire Transit District
209 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 73 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that the following allegation sufficiently pled CGA exhaustion: "[o]n January 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a timely claim complying with the required claims statute."
Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist
60 Cal.App.3d 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) Cited 150 timesHolding that plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that defendants "negligently and carelessly failed to provide [him] with adequate instruction, guidance, counseling, and/or supervision in basic academic skills," failed to state a cause of action
Barbara A. v. John G.
145 Cal.App.3d 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 108 timesRecognizing presumption can apply to claims against lawyer for battery and deceit
Lehto v. City of Oxnard
171 Cal.App.3d 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 39 timesHolding that allegations of negligence based on a failure to follow state statutory and decisional law and city enactments, regulations and customs were insufficient because no specific enactment was alleged to have been violated
Estate of Jamison
41 Cal.2d 1 (Cal. 1953) Cited 55 timesDocket No. L.A. 22087. May 8, 1953. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County declaring that a holographic will was entitled to be admitted to probate. John Gee Clark, Judge. Affirmed insofar as judgment determined decedent was competent when will was made, and reversed with directions insofar as judgment determined that there was no undue influence; portion of judgment allowing costs, reversed. Frederick W. Mahl, Jr., Edward Alton, Frank M. Sturgis and Allan F. Bullard for
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Rule 4.1 - Serving Other Process
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1 Cited 245 timesInstructing that "[p]rocess . . . may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located"