§Why CasetextPricing

Collins vs. Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center

Response

9 Cited authorities

  1. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 294 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from a car accident sought written statements that had been obtained from witnesses by the defendant's insurance adjusters and investigators.

  2. Murillo v. Superior Court

    143 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 46 times

    No. G035816. September 29, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FWVRS023671, Dennis G. Cole, Judge. Gerard Farber, Interim Public Defender, and Pamela P. King, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Mark Vos and Mary L. Andonov, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest. OPINION RYLAARSDAM, Acting P. J. This petition for a writ of mandate arises from an action under Welfare and Institutions

  3. City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC

    235 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 26 times

    B249094 03-18-2015 CITY OF GLENDALE, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Rutan & Tucker, William M. Marticorena, Jeffrey T. Melching, Michelle D. Molko, Costa Mesa, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant. Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, Richard R. Patch, Ann E. Johnston, San Francisco, Frederick C. Crombie for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. MOSK, Acting P.J. Rutan & Tucker, William M. Marticorena, Jeffrey

  4. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. S057119. December 1, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC006881, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. COUNSEL Hennelly Grossfeld, John J. Hennelly and Susan J. Williams for Petitioners. Hugh F. Young, Jr., Jan S. Amundson, Harvey M. Grossman, Sherman Joyce, Crowell Moring, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Nabil W. Istafanous, D. Dudley Oldham, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Alfred W. Cortese, Jr., Kathleen

  5. Fredericks v. Kontos Industries, Inc.

    189 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Fredericks, an owner responded to a request for admission by admitting he had agreed to make payments to a contractor according to a payment schedule.

  6. 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

  7. Shepard Morgan v. Lee Daniel, Inc.

    31 Cal.3d 256 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. L.A. 31485. May 6, 1982. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 96543, Jack E. Goertzen, Judge. COUNSEL Murchison Cumming, John A. McCaskey, Horvitz Greines, Ellis J. Horvitz, Frederic D. Cohen and Michelle Van Cleave for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Waters, McCluskey Corcoran, Laurence R. Corcoran and Scott L. Thomas for Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION RICHARDSON, J. A general contractor, when named as a defendant in a personal injury action which alleged

  8. Cembrook v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 423 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 44 times
    In Cembrook the defendant objected to approximately 40 requests for admissions of facts, moving to strike the requests and to be relieved of the necessity of providing any answer.

  9. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 34 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;