§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

12 Cited authorities

  1. PCO Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP

    150 Cal.App.4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 202 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]oney cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved."

  2. Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

    175 Cal.App.4th 1306 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 125 times
    Affirming exclusion of self-described subjective statement: "I on behalf of Sage Council and Habitat Trust contemplated that the contract purpose of the Settlement Release Agreement (Exhibit 41) was to . . . ," where the witness "does not indicate that she expressed her asserted intention to anyone before or at the time of contracting" and "her prior language, acts and conduct evidence a contrary intention"

  3. Meister v. Mensinger

    230 Cal.App.4th 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 89 times
    Discussing disgorgement as a remedy available for breach of a fiduciary duty

  4. K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court

    120 Cal.App.4th 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    In K.R.L. Partnership the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant and it was transferred to the county where he was resident; following the transfer, the defendant then brought a compulsory cross-complaint against the plaintiffs.

  5. Goossen v. Clifton

    75 Cal.App.2d 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)   Cited 38 times

    Docket No. 13072. June 20, 1946. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County denying change of venue. M.G. Del Mutolo, Judge. Reversed. Fred Aberle and Rankin, Oneal, Luckhardt Hall for Appellants. Campbell, Hayes Custer and Austen D. Warburton for Respondent. PETERS, P.J. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a change of venue from the county of Santa Clara to the county of Los Angeles. On application of defendants for a writ of supersedeas an order to show

  6. Nanny v. Ruby Lighting Corp.

    108 Cal.App.2d 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. 14785. January 29, 1952. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting change of venue. Preston Devine, Judge. Affirmed. Mueller McLeod for Appellant. Dinkelspiel Dinkelspiel, Harold A. Block, Knight, Gitelson, Ashton Hagenbaugh and Alfred Gitelson for Respondent. PETERS, P.J. This is an appeal from an order granting a motion for change of venue. The action was filed in San Francisco. The complaint fails to state the principal or any place

  7. Erwin v. Cee-Tee Construction Co.

    114 Cal.App.2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 6 times

    Docket No. 4440. November 25, 1952. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County denying a change of venue. John A. Hewicker, Judge. Reversed. Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Albert G. Bergman for Appellants. Martin C. Casey and John W. Kerrigan for Respondent. GRIFFIN, J. At the time of the filing of the complaint in this action for damages for breach of a contract and for "damage to his credit rating and business reputation," claimed due under the first count, and

  8. Mathews Conveyor Co. v. Powell

    159 Cal.App.2d 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    Docket No. 17588. April 18, 1958. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Mateo County denying change of venue. Aylett R. Cotton, Judge. Affirmed. McGilvray, McGilvray Cameron for Appellant. Truce Veal and Harlan K. Veal for Respondent. PETERS, P.J. The Mathews Conveyer Company West Coast filed a three count complaint in San Mateo County naming O. Frank Towse and several others as defendants. Towse moved for a change of venue to Yolo County, his residence. The motion was denied. Towse appeals

  9. Claycomb v. Caronna

    113 Cal.App.2d 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 4 times

    Docket No. 4506. October 7, 1952. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County denying change of venue. L.N. Turrentine, Judge. Reversed. David Press for Appellants. Procopio, Price Schwartz for Respondents. GRIFFIN, J. Plaintiffs brought this action on August 14, 1951, against defendants who then resided in Los Angeles County. The complaint concerns a transaction between plaintiffs and defendants, who were all at that time residing in San Diego County. Plaintiffs agreed to and

  10. Credit Bureau of San Diego v. Clark

    98 Cal.App.2d 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 1 times

    Docket No. 3981. July 14, 1950. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County denying change of venue. Robert B. Burch, Judge. Affirmed. Action on contract. Order denying defendants' motion for change of venue, affirmed. Leslie E. Hubbard and Frank L. Stearns, for Appellant. Ruel Liggett and Roy M. Cleator for Respondent. MUSSELL, J. Plaintiff, as assignee, commenced the within action in the county of San Diego to recover sums alleged to be due from the defendant under a contract