People v. Stansbury
9 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 1995) Cited 605 timesHolding that a reasonable person would not consider that he or she was in custody despite being questioned in the jail area of the police station
People v. Morris
53 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1991) Cited 568 timesRequiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause
K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc.
171 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 277 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding the facts, not the labels, in a pleading determine whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.
158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 276 timesAffirming trial court's award of fees, without allocation, where contract and misrepresentation claims arose from same operative facts
Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
171 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 78 times 1 Legal AnalysesExplaining that “[t]he identity or expertise of the original trier of fact (i.e., a judge or an arbitrator or another type of adjudicator) does not alter the jury's responsibility in the legal malpractice trial within a trial”
Coffey v. Shiomoto
60 Cal.4th 1198 (Cal. 2015) Cited 53 timesRecognizing that the HGN test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test are "extremely accurate in discriminating between BACs above and below 0.08 percent" (cleaned up)
Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.
79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 132 timesIn Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Hyatt), the plaintiff was driving in the right lane on a highway late at night when his vehicle apparently struck a glancing blow against the defendant's boat trailer, which was parked alongside the highway, then skidded or rolled into a telephone pole.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co. v. Superior Court
200 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) Cited 79 timesDiscussing a court's inherent power to preclude the presentation of evidence as a sanction for litigation abuse
Love v. Wolf
226 Cal.App.2d 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964) Cited 133 timesIn Wolf the profit from the sale of a drug was held admissible to show motive for alleged overpromotion of that drug to the medical profession that might be held to cancel out the effectiveness of an insert warning.
Hoffman v. Brandt
65 Cal.2d 549 (Cal. 1966) Cited 61 timesConcluding financial condition not relevant where there are no claims for exemplary damages
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