§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition_to_demurrer_to_fac

Opposition

34 Cited authorities

  1. People ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna

    14 Cal.4th 1090 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 525 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preliminary injunctions are reviewed "under an abuse of discretion standard"

  2. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

    39 Cal.4th 95 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 247 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a defendant can be liable under section 632 for recording its own conversation with plaintiff if plaintiff did not consent to the recording

  3. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that a suit to enjoin the "Old Joe Camel" cigarette advertising campaign targeting minors pursuant to California state law is not preempted by the Federal Act

  4. Flanagan v. Flanagan

    27 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 179 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because Section 632 defines confidential communications as "includ[ing]" certain communications, and "includes" is "ordinarily a term of enlargement rather than limitation," Section 632 should be interpreted inclusively

  5. Baggett v. Gates

    32 Cal.3d 128 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 242 times
    Upholding imposition of state procedural protections for peace officers before they could be removed or punished, finding the maintenance of stable employment relations between police officers and their public employers was a matter of statewide concern given the impact a breakdown in relations would have on delivery of the police’s essential public service

  6. Hansen v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

    171 Cal.App.4th 1537 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff's claims arose from protected activity because they were based on written and oral statements made during or about an internal investigation

  7. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.

    110 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that a news report on the “unlawful dispensing of controlled substances is an issue of great public interest”

  8. Continental Baking Co. v. Katz

    68 Cal.2d 512 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Continental Baking, this court explained the theory behind this two-pronged test: "`[By] balancing the respective equities of the parties, [the court] concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the right claimed by him.'"

  9. White v. County of Sacramento

    31 Cal.3d 676 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 202 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191 (1982), the California Supreme Court interpreted a statute with a very similar grammatical structure to the disputed portion of Song–Beverly.

  10. People v. Nazary

    191 Cal.App.4th 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Nazary, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pages 741–742, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 143, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant employee could properly be convicted of both grand theft by an employee (larceny) and embezzlement by an employee.

  11. Section 632 - Unlawful eavesdropping or recording

    Cal. Pen. Code § 632   Cited 574 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year"

  12. Section 6-1.0996 - Graduation Requirements for Certain Students with Disabilities (Transferred)

    Fla. Admin. Code R. 6-1.0996   Cited 33 times
    Alleging comments regarding age