§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

13 Cited authorities

  1. Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co.

    116 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that monthly payments were divisible from each other and that a new cause of action for breach accrued periodically

  2. Loeb Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc.

    166 Cal.App.3d 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a plaintiff established the probable validity of its claim by putting forth factual evidence that contradicted the defendant's defenses

  3. United Central Bank v. Superior Court

    179 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 12 times

    No. G042247. October 19, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2009-00122035, Randell L. Wilkinson, Judge. Assayag Mauss, Michele Sabo Assayag and Henry Hwang for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. David Edward Ambill for Real Party in Interest. OPINION THE COURT.[fn*] [fn*] Rylaarsdam, Acting P. J., Aronson, J., and Ikola, J. Petitioner United Central Bank (the Bank) seeks extraordinary relief from an order denying its motion for a right to attach order and issuance

  4. Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc.

    207 Cal.App.3d 260 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 27 times

    Docket No. H002283. January 19, 1989. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 603081, James A. Wright, Judge. COUNSEL Diemer, Schneider, Luce Quillinan, James G. Luce, Meyer Mitchell, Daniel L. Mitchell, Bennett Cohen, Brian Thornton, Hoecker McMahon, Gary W. Hoecker, David Wade, Pilot Spar, A. Albert Spar, Cathleen Cooper Moran, Margaret G. Laliberte and Susan B. Luce for Defendants and Appellants. Buchalter, Nemer, Fields Younger, Gary Nemer, James B. Wright, Lorraine B. Moura, Peter

  5. Baker v. Superior Court

    150 Cal.App.3d 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 29 times
    Acknowledging the "limitation" against "seek[ing] inconsistent remedies in causes of action based on the same facts"

  6. California First Bank v. Braden

    216 Cal.App.3d 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 21 times
    Referring to section 360.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the court implied that there could be a waiver after the statute of limitations period had run

  7. Wiener v. Van Winkle

    273 Cal.App.2d 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Wiener v. Van Winkle (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 774 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 761], a trial court adopted similar reasoning in denying attorney fees to successful plaintiffs who had retained counsel on a contingent fee basis.

  8. Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.App.3d 127 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 15 times
    In Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.3d 127 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 350], husband and wife, president and secretary respectively (as well as directors, with their son) of a closed corporation wholly owned by them, signed a promissory note of the corporation as individual guarantors; the note was made as payment for business materials of the corporation.

  9. Johnson v. Alexander

    63 Cal.App.3d 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that attachment was proper where there was "a substantial danger that the defendants would transfer, other than in the ordinary course of business, remove or conceal the property sought to be attached"

  10. American Guaranty Corp. v. Stoody

    230 Cal.App.2d 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 18 times
    Acknowledging that California Legislature has abolished distinction between guarantors and sureties