11 Cited authorities

Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) Cited 597 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding "plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's [or decedent's] exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer"
Walker v. Superior Court
53 Cal.3d 257 (Cal. 1991) Cited 310 times
In Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 267, 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418, we noted that while section 128 sets out some of the courts' inherent powers, those powers are derived from the California Constitution (art.
Duronslet v. Kamps
203 Cal.App.4th 717 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 116 times
Holding physician-patient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physician's supervision or acting as physician's agent
Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.
155 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 121 times
Holding court had inherent authority to dismiss case for misconduct during discovery that included stealing confidential documents and altering them to delete confidentiality notations to create false impression they were not confidential
Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc.
149 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 110 times 2 Legal Analyses
Reviewing court will not consider arguments contained in documents filed in the trial court and incorporated by reference
Osborne v. Todd Farm Serv.
247 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 40 times
Affirming trial court's exclusion of hearsay statement by employee of defendant where plaintiff proffered no evidence the defendant authorized the employee to speak on its behalf
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co. v. Superior Court
200 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) Cited 78 times
Noting a trial court's "order precluding evidence [was] not a sanction for the abuse of discovery procedures, but [was] a remedy for abuse of the litigation process" and concluding the order was authorized under "[t]he court's inherent power to curb abuses and promote fair process" which has been "flexibly applied in response to the many vagaries of the litigation process"
Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
32 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 51 times
Holding that paragraph (B) of rule 2-100 applies only to persons employed at the time of the communication
San Francisco Unified School District ex rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc.
213 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 23 times
Noting that "[c]ase law and other legal authority clearly establish that the individual plaintiffs' contacts with [the defendant's] employees violated [the California equivalent of Rule 4.2] only if the contacts were wrongfully orchestrated by plaintiffs' counsel"
Ferguson v. Keays
4 Cal.3d 649 (Cal. 1971) Cited 74 times
Noting that "the legitimate purpose of providing financial support for our courts" does not require "depriv[ing] indigents of access to the appellate courts"
Section 1
Cal. Const. art. VI § 1 Cited 233 times
The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. Cal. Const. art. VI § 1

Gary Mckenzie vs. Oswald Cabrera

11 Cited authorities

In Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 267, 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418, we noted that while section 128 sets out some of the courts' inherent powers, those powers are derived from the California Constitution (art.

Holding physician-patient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physician's supervision or acting as physician's agent

Holding court had inherent authority to dismiss case for misconduct during discovery that included stealing confidential documents and altering them to delete confidentiality notations to create false impression they were not confidential

Reviewing court will not consider arguments contained in documents filed in the trial court and incorporated by reference

Affirming trial court's exclusion of hearsay statement by employee of defendant where plaintiff proffered no evidence the defendant authorized the employee to speak on its behalf

Holding that paragraph (B) of rule 2-100 applies only to persons employed at the time of the communication

Noting that "[c]ase law and other legal authority clearly establish that the individual plaintiffs' contacts with [the defendant's] employees violated [the California equivalent of Rule 4.2] only if the contacts were wrongfully orchestrated by plaintiffs' counsel"

Noting that "the legitimate purpose of providing financial support for our courts" does not require "depriv[ing] indigents of access to the appellate courts"