9 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,939 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
  2. McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.

    98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 136 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment for the defendant when evidence suggested that defendant's “products might have been used once,” but no evidence showed that products contained asbestos at the time
  3. J.L. v. Children's Institute

    177 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ostensible agency can only be established based on "the statements or acts of the principal"
  4. Hernandez v. Superior Court

    112 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 65 times
    Denying appellant's request to order the action assigned to a new judge where the challenged orders “do not suggest bias or whimsy on behalf of the court, only frustration and a desire to manage a complex case”
  5. Federico v. Superior Court

    59 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that the employer could not be held liable for negligent hiring where it could not be reasonably foreseen that an employee's child would be molested by another employee because minors were generally not allowed at the employer's school of hairstyling
  6. Osborn v. Hertz Corp.

    205 Cal.App.3d 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 53 times
    In Osborn v. Hertz Corp., 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 252 Cal.Rptr. 613 (1988), that court affirmed summary judgment for a rental company.
  7. Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.

    69 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 20 times

    A080747 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 967384, 984673, consolidated.) Filed February 3, 1999 Certified for Publication Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco County, David Garcia, Judge. Brayton, Purcell, Curtis Geagan, Gilbert L. Purcell, James Geagan and Marc L. TerBeek for Plaintiff and Appellant. Thacher, Albrecht Ratcliff, James F. Thacher, Charles S. Holden; Becherer, Kannett Schweitzer and Mark S. Kannett for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION WALKER, J. — Dorothy Chaknova,

  8. Biles v. Richter

    206 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times
    In Biles v. Richter (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 325, plaintiff and defendants had been drinking at various restaurants and social clubs.
  9. Section 437c - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Motion for summary judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c   Cited 8,366 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion