§Why CasetextPricing

Joan Tommarello vs. Bmw of North America LLC

Reply to Opposition

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Stanley

    10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 2,237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding admission of evidence of a car arson as an offense that "involved an implied threat of violence against a person"

  2. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  3. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 283 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"

  4. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc

    17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Act should be interpreted to support its remedial purpose

  5. Jones v. Dumrichob

    63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 151 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount

  6. Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.

    141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 88 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"

  7. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  8. Melnyk v. Robledo

    64 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 156 times
    Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"

  9. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Los Angeles

    50 Cal.3d 402 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing this familiar rule of statutory construction encompassed by the Latin phrase expressio unius est exclusio alterius

  10. State v. Crawford

    39 Kan. App. 2d 897 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In State v. Crawford, 39 Kan.App.2d 897, 897–98, 185 P.3d 315 (2008), a panel of the Court of Appeals, relying on our precedent, In re W.H., clearly declared that “[a] court's power to impose consecutive sentences flows from statutory authority,” and that because none of the consecutive-sentence statutes in the adult criminal code expressly included the circumstance in that case, “the district court had no authority to impose a consecutive adult sentence. ” (Emphasis added.)