Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,288 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."
Kids' Universe v. In2Labs
95 Cal.App.4th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 346 timesFinding expert testimony insufficient to demonstrate lost profits where a small toy store claimed that flood damage to the store caused by defendant led to $50 million in lost profits because Plaintiff's new website would have allowed it to compete in the Internet toy marketing business
Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
160 Cal.App.4th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 153 timesDefining "unfair," "unlawful" and "fraudulent" practices under California's UCL
Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.
99 Cal.App.4th 1361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 171 times 4 Legal AnalysesRegarding unsupported factual assertions
Colores v. Board of Trustees
105 Cal.App.4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 158 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the fact that the plaintiff "was simply doing her job when she uncovered the unauthorized use of state assets . . . associated with facilities operations" did not defeat her right to whistleblower status under § 1102.5(b)
Zavala v. Arce
58 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 145 timesDocket No. D023269. October 27, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SB2433, Thomas Oliver LaVoy, Judge. COUNSEL Suppa, Highnote Lee and Teresa Trucchi for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois Bisgaard, Marilyn R. Moriarty, James E. Friedhofer and Thomas M. Diachenko for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION NARES, J. Plaintiff Diana Zavala appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Jorge Arce, M.D. (Dr. Arce), her former obstetrician, on her first amended
Villa v. McFerren
35 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 141 timesInterpreting the allocation of the burden of proof under the 1992 amendments to the summary judgment statute as a question of law
Thatcher v. Lucky Stores
79 Cal.App.4th 1081 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 58 timesIn Thatcher, the trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis that no opposition was filed, consistent with a local rule providing that failure to file opposition to a motion could be deemed an admission that the motion was meritorious.
Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court
16 Cal.App.4th 1019 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 28 timesIn Flowmaster, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1031, the court concluded that “in an action against an employer-manufacturer of a power press, for failure to install a guard [citation], the plaintiff must prove that the employer’s own design of the press provided for a guard which was later removed or never installed; or, alternatively, that one was ‘required’ to protect against a known risk of serious injury, but was deliberately omitted by the employer from the design fabrication or assembly of the machine.
McManis v. San Diego Postal Credit Union
61 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 6 timesDocket No. D024647. February 11, 1998. [Opinion certified for partial publication. ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of Discussion section, parts I.A.2., I.A.3., I.B., I.C., II and III. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 673519, J. Richard Haden, Judge. COUNSEL P. Robert Philp, Jr., and J. Jason Hill for Plaintiff and Appellant. Johnson McCarthy, Daniel B. McCarthy and John Evan Edwards for Defendant
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system