§Why CasetextPricing

Rual Gomez vs. Arturo Lorera

Motion for Protective Order

9 Cited authorities

  1. Day v. Rosenthal

    170 Cal.App.3d 1125 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 97 times
    Holding where client established attorney breached fiduciary duty to client when providing advice as to investments, attorney's services were "valueless" to client

  2. Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (Allen E. Botney)

    15 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1975), the court found that the language of the Revenue and Taxation Code reflected a clear legislative intent that tax returns be treated as privileged in order to encourage full and truthful declarations.

  3. Mack v. Superior Court

    259 Cal.App.2d 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 20 times
    In Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, which was decided after the 1963 amendment created an explicit work product privilege, the court stated, "[t]he work product privilege was created for the protection of the client as well as the attorney.

  4. Brown v. Superior Court

    218 Cal.App.2d 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 19 times
    In Brown, supra, it was pointed out (218 Cal.App.2d 430, 437) that: "California rules declaring communications between attorney and client to be privileged (Code Civ. Proc. § 1881, subd. 2) were not changed by the new discovery legislation.

  5. Ryan v. Superior Court

    186 Cal.App.2d 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 21 times
    In Ryan it was held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require the plaintiff to answer interrogatories requesting plaintiff to list the name of each biographee whose name appeared in the 1956 edition of plaintiff's work who did not appear in the 1957 issue, upon the rationale that each of these publications was equally available to defendants and that, accordingly, plaintiff should not be required to do the clerical work involved.

  6. Holguin v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.App.3d 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. 38600. January 12, 1972. COUNSEL Ronald M. Sohigian and Samuel Shore for Petitioners. Robert E. Cartwright, Edward I. Pollock, Theodore A. Horn, Marvin E. Lewis, William H. Lally, Joseph W. Cotchett, Leonard Sack and Elmer Low as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Bonne, Jones Bridges, Bruce J. Bonne, Horvitz Minikes, Ellis J. Horvitz and Morton Minikes for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION KAUS, P.J. In this mandate proceeding petitioners ("plaintiffs")

  7. Lindgren v. Superior Court

    237 Cal.App.2d 743 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. 29649. October 29, 1965. PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to vacate an order striking certain answers to a request for admissions of fact and to deny a motion compelling further answers. Philbrick McCoy, Judge. Writ granted. Max E. Gilmore for Petitioner. Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Donald K. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent. Myron W. Curzon for Real Party in Interest. THE COURT. Petition for writ of mandate to require respondent

  8. Bunnell v. Superior Court

    254 Cal.App.2d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Docket No. 24680. September 28, 1967. PROCEEDING in mandamus treated as a proceeding in prohibition to prohibit the Superior Court of Alameda County from enforcing an order which would compel petitioner to answer certain interrogatories in an action for defamation. Leonard J. Dieden, Judge. Writ of prohibition granted. Long Levit, Victor B. Levit and Gerald Z. Marer for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Bronson, Bronson McKinnon and Richard S. Hawkinson for Real Party in Interest. MOLINARI

  9. Section 2 - Liberal construction

    Cal. Evid. Code § 2   Cited 77 times

    The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this code. This code establishes the law of this state respecting the subject to which it relates, and its provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to effecting its objects and promoting justice. Ca. Evid. Code § 2 Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.