26 Cited authorities

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,989 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.
142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 715 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,028 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
Laabs v. City of Victorville
163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 380 times
Finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court "could have easily concluded that at the time plaintiff refused to admit such matters she reasonably held a good faith belief that she would prevail at trial on these issues"
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp.
148 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 365 times
Holding a net operating loss as intangible property
Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 499 times
Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”
Graham v. Bank of America, N.A.
226 Cal.App.4th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 227 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no causation for damages where the "prospect of losing the home to foreclosure [was] the result of default, not the alleged conduct of defendants"
PCO Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP
150 Cal.App.4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 202 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[m]oney cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved."
Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries
7 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 1994) Cited 248 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that fraudulent concealment “tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it”
Distefano v. Forester
85 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 163 times 1 Legal Analyses
Adopting Justice Chin's concurrence in Cheong which reasoned that statute does not replace Knight unless Legislature amends statute after Knight was decided to expressly do so
Section 496 - Buying or receipt of stolen property
Cal. Pen. Code § 496 Cited 5,037 times 8 Legal Analyses
Relating to receipt of stolen property
Section 484 - Theft
Cal. Pen. Code § 484 Cited 2,861 times 4 Legal Analyses
Outlining the elements of both theories
Section 8 - Intent to defraud
Cal. Pen. Code § 8 Cited 141 times
Enacting Pen. Code, § 550

William J. Madden vs. N. Arthur astor

26 Cited authorities

Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

Finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court "could have easily concluded that at the time plaintiff refused to admit such matters she reasonably held a good faith belief that she would prevail at trial on these issues"

Holding a net operating loss as intangible property

Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”

Finding no causation for damages where the "prospect of losing the home to foreclosure [was] the result of default, not the alleged conduct of defendants"

Holding that "[m]oney cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved."

Holding that fraudulent concealment “tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it”

Adopting Justice Chin's concurrence in Cheong which reasoned that statute does not replace Knight unless Legislature amends statute after Knight was decided to expressly do so

Relating to receipt of stolen property

Outlining the elements of both theories

Enacting Pen. Code, § 550