29 Cited authorities

Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) Cited 675 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"
Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.
22 Cal.3d 865 (Cal. 1978) Cited 495 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the element of intent could not be effectively isolated
Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.
24 Cal.3d 773 (Cal. 1979) Cited 399 times
Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"
Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
25 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 257 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages
Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn
42 Cal.3d 490 (Cal. 1986) Cited 290 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that directors of a corporation "are liable to third persons injured by their own tortious conduct. . . ."
Hauter v. Zogarts
14 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1975) Cited 315 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff stated a claim pursuant to Rest.2d Torts, § 402B, recognized under California law
Shafer v. Berger
107 Cal.App.4th 54 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 129 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an attorney may be liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made to defeat a statutory cause of action created by Insurance Code section 11580
PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha
78 Cal.App.4th 1368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 139 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporate officer is liable if she "knows or has reason to know about tortious misappropriation . . . and allows it to occur"
United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.
1 Cal.3d 586 (Cal. 1970) Cited 321 times
Holding "[d]irectors or officers of a corporation do not incur personal liability for torts of the corporation merely by reason of their official position, unless they participate in the wrong or authorize or direct that it be done."
Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance
4 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 120 times
Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."

Peter Geddes Md vs. Ko'S Anaheim Professional Inc

29 Cited authorities

Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"

Concluding that the element of intent could not be effectively isolated

Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"

Holding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages

Holding that directors of a corporation "are liable to third persons injured by their own tortious conduct. . . ."

Holding that plaintiff stated a claim pursuant to Rest.2d Torts, § 402B, recognized under California law

Holding that an attorney may be liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made to defeat a statutory cause of action created by Insurance Code section 11580

Holding that a corporate officer is liable if she "knows or has reason to know about tortious misappropriation . . . and allows it to occur"

Holding "[d]irectors or officers of a corporation do not incur personal liability for torts of the corporation merely by reason of their official position, unless they participate in the wrong or authorize or direct that it be done."

Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."