§Why CasetextPricing

Carmen Cerciello vs. Crestline Homeowners association

Motion to Strike

10 Cited authorities

  1. College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court

    8 Cal.4th 704 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 533 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Summarizing amendments

  2. In re Angelia P

    28 Cal.3d 908 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 653 times
    Holding that a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Civil Code section 232 did not violate due process

  3. Taylor v. Superior Court

    24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 243 times
    In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

  4. Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance

    4 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 122 times
    Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."

  5. Perkins v. Superior Court

    117 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 39 times
    Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"

  6. People v. McElrath

    175 Cal.App.3d 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 32 times
    In McElrath, after the alleged offenses occurred, the victim was examined by a physician and vaginal and anal swabs were taken.

  7. People v. Adams

    137 Cal.App.3d 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 30 times

    Docket No. 13986. November 12, 1982. Appeal from Superior Court of Stanislaus County, No. 169032, Norman S. Reid, Judge. COUNSEL Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and David Y. Stanley, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant. George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Assistant Attorney General, Robert D. Marshall and Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff

  8. People v. Carter

    144 Cal.App.3d 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 21 times
    In Carter, defendant's sentence was enhanced under both section 667.5, subdivision (a), which provides an enhancement for each "prior separate prison term served" and section 667.6, subdivision (a), which provides an enhancement where the defendant "has been convicted previously of any" enumerated forcible sex offense.

  9. Woolstrum v. Mailloux

    141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs' evidence that the rancher's cows had escaped several times over the past 10 years constituted sufficient evidence for jury to properly find simple negligence and to award compensatory damages where the plaintiffs sustained damages when their car collided with a cow owned by the defendant

  10. Blegen v. Superior Court

    125 Cal.App.3d 959 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. 62015. November 23, 1981. COUNSEL Richard D. Hughes and David P. Crandall for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Arthur W. Tuverson and Helen Gordon Woznak for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION STEPHENS, Acting P.J. Petitioner is the plaintiff in a pending legal malpractice action. Real parties in interest are defendants in that action. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge respondent court's order striking a claim for punitive damages. We issued an alternative