§Why CasetextPricing

Gregory Burke vs. Trevor W. Basil

Opposition

17 Cited authorities

  1. Hughes v. Pair

    46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,011 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

  2. Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.

    178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 416 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that all materials submitted by plaintiff to DFEH, including two intake questionnaires, may be considered for purposes of determining whether plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies

  3. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,272 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules

  4. Adams v. Murakami

    54 Cal.3d 105 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 432 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs must present meaningful evidence of a defendant's financial condition in part because courts must review punitive damages awards for excessiveness, and an “award can be so disproportionate to the defendant's ability to pay that the award is excessive for that reason alone ”

  5. Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

    62 Cal.2d 412 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 242 times
    In Stationers Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 449, 398 P.2d 785], the well settled rules of the law of summary judgment were succinctly summarized as follows: "The matter to be determined by the trial court in considering such a motion is whether the defendant (or the plaintiff) has presented any facts which give rise to a triable issue.

  6. Basich v. Allstate Insurance Company

    87 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary adjudication that insurer was not subject to punitive damages for bad faith

  7. Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.

    72 Cal.App.4th 284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 68 times
    Moving defendant must establish each element of affirmative defense

  8. Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court

    227 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Paramount, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in reconsidering a prior order denying a motion for summary judgment without giving the parties an opportunity to provide further oral or written argument before issuing a new ruling.

  9. S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

    186 Cal.App.4th 383 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 35 times
    In S.B.C.C., the court of appeal held that a similarly-worded IP exclusion was "clear and explicit; it expressly states that in addition to the listed forms of intellectual property infringement, there is no coverage for 'any other injury or damage that's alleged in any claim or suit which also alleges any such infringement or violation'" (emphasis in original).

  10. I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc.

    235 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. B243362 02-18-2015 I-CA ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PALRAM AMERICAS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; Plasgad Plastic Products Agricultural Cooperative Ltd. of Kibbutz Gadot, Defendant and Respondent. Law Office of Richard L. Weiner, Richard L. Weiner and Stephen M. Astor for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Roy G. Weatherup Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant. Kevin P. Kane Associates, Inc. and Kevin P. Kane Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent

  11. Section 2510 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 2510   Cited 4,319 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"

  12. Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 236 times

    (a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication