§Why CasetextPricing

American Innovation Corporation vs. Raytheon Company

Opposition

11 Cited authorities

  1. New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (John Shanahan)

    168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 179 times
    Concluding that the trial court erred in imposing issue and evidence sanctions in the absence of an order compelling the inspection, as specified in the relevant method-specific chapter

  2. Wilcox v. Birtwhistle

    21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 220 times
    Acknowledging that, while not determinative, legislative silence after a court has construed a statute may give rise to an inference of acquiescence or passive approval

  3. Solv-All v. Superior Court

    131 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 87 times
    Finding no excusable neglect where attorney was aware of the deadline and "'just let it slip by'"

  4. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

    56 Cal.App.4th 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that because objections to requests for admissions were unchallenged by a motion to compel a further response, the denial of sanctions was proper

  5. Luz v. Lopes

    55 Cal.2d 54 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 220 times
    In Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54 (Luz), the court stated: "[I]t is and has been the law of this state that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced."

  6. Zellerino v. Brown

    235 Cal.App.3d 1097 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 78 times
    In Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222], the plaintiff, seeking to justify her failure to make a timely designation of expert witnesses, argued that she had not yet retained these witnesses as of the disclosure deadline.

  7. Redwood Empire v. Gombos

    82 Cal.App.4th 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Upholding a finding of implied public dedication of a one-lane dirt road in the Santa Cruz Mountains

  8. Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.

    270 Cal.App.2d 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 47 times
    In Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 275 (Transit Ads), relied upon by Scripps, counsel, a sole practitioner, for a party seeking to set aside a default judgment declared he had taken weight loss medication that caused him to become "nauseated, dizzy, in a general weakened condition," preventing him from doing paper work or working at a desk.

  9. Section 473 - Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473   Cited 6,005 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Allowing up to six months to challenge a judgment entered through the moving party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

  10. Section 2033.410 - Matter conclusively established; binding only on party

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.410   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of that admission under Section 2033.300. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any admission made by a party under this section is binding only on that party and is made for the purpose of the pending action only. It is not an admission by that party for any other purpose, and it shall not be

  11. Section 2033.300 - Withdrawal or amendment of admission

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth procedure and criteria for party to withdraw or amend admission