§Why CasetextPricing

Parisa Anderson vs. Placentia Linda Hospital

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

16 Cited authorities

  1. Moore v. Regents of University of California

    51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 618 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in obtaining a patient's consent to a procedure, "a physician must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, whether research or economic, that may affect the physician's professional judgment"

  2. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 717 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between advertisers of cereal and consumers because "it is unnecessary to call upon the law of fiduciary relationships to perform a function for which it was not designed and is largely unsuited"

  3. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 267 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."

  4. Serrano v. Priest

    5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 539 times
    Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

  5. Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

    88 Cal.App.3d 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 60 times
    Affirming demurrer with respect to claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

  6. Lawrence v. Bank of America

    163 Cal.App.3d 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 43 times
    Explaining that the depositor failed to allege any facts which would support a finding that a fiduciary relationship existed between the bank and its depositor

  7. Gonzales v. State of California

    68 Cal.App.3d 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 56 times

    Docket No. 37800. March 30, 1977. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 307013, Harry W. Low, Judge. COUNSEL Leslie C. Nichols, Rubin Tepper, Mayron Emanuel, Mayron, Emanuel Ince and Michael Allan Mayron for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, and Robert L. Bergman, Assistant Attorney General, and J.L. Henderson, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MOLINARI, P.J. Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting their

  8. Banerian v. O'Malley

    42 Cal.App.3d 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that,"[e]xcept as between plaintiffs and defendants, there is no compulsory cross-complaint in California procedure," and that a cross-complaint is permissive between parties and nonparties

  9. Bernstein v. Piller

    98 Cal.App.2d 441 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 4 times

    Docket No. 17607. July 13, 1950. APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William B. McKesson and Arnold L. Praeger, Judges. Affirmed. Action for an injunction, an accounting, and damages for alleged conspiracy and wrongful use of plaintiffs' secret lists and processes. Judgments of dismissal after plaintiffs' failure to amend complaint within time allowed, affirmed. Jacob W. Silverman and Robert Licker for Appellants. Samuel De Groot and Harold L. Newman for Respondents

  10. Luiz v. Queen of Angels Hospital

    53 Cal.App.2d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)   Cited 7 times

    Docket No. 12906. July 8, 1942. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William S. Baird, Judge. Affirmed. Marcus, Rabwin Nash for Appellant. Joseph Scott and J. Howard Ziemann for Respondent. BISHOP, J. pro tem. Following the course set by the familiar principles "that if there is any substantial evidence supporting the judgment it must be affirmed, that all reasonable inferences supporting the judgment must be given effect, and that with conflicts in the evidence, this

  11. Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10   Cited 1,056 times
    Explaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  12. Section 430.30 - Objection taken by demurrer; by answer

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30   Cited 379 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing demurrer to a complaint when the ground for objection appears on the face of the pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice

  13. Section 430.50 - Demurrer to whole complaint or any cause of action stated; demurrer to whole answer or to any defenses set up

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.50   Cited 10 times

    (a) A demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or cross-complaint or to any of the causes of action stated therein. (b) A demurrer to an answer may be taken to the whole answer or to any one or more of the several defenses set up in the answer. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.50 Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 244.

  14. Rule 3.1320 - Demurrers

    Cal. R. 3.1320   Cited 97 times

    (a) Grounds separately stated Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses. (b) Demurrer not directed to all causes of action A demurrer to a cause of action may be filed without answering other causes of action. (c) Notice of hearing A party filing a demurrer must serve and file therewith a notice of hearing that must specify a hearing date in accordance