§Why CasetextPricing

Teresa Johnston vs. University Community association

Opposition

16 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,948 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. Privette v. Superior Court

    5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 324 times   19 Legal Analyses
    In Privette, the California Supreme Court provided a thorough analysis of the intersection of workers' compensation and the peculiar risk doctrine, an exception to the general rule of nonliability for a landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform inherently dangerous work as recognized in Sections 413, 416, and 427 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Privette, 854 P.2d at 691, 693; see also Thompson, 979 P.2d at 329.

  3. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

    75 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 222 times
    Holding that consent to a contract may be manifested by conduct

  4. Hooker v. Department of Transportation

    27 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 170 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding property owner that "retained control over safety conditions at the worksite," and knowingly "permitted" unsafe practice to continue at worksite, not liable for death of independent contractor's employee, where owner "did not direct" employee to engage in unsafe practice

  5. Brantley v. Pisaro

    42 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 189 times
    Describing the three-step analysis used by this court to analyze motions for summary judgment

  6. Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

    52 Cal.4th 590 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 90 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the tort law duty, if any, that a hirer owes under Cal-OSHA and its regulations to the employees of an independent contractor" is delegable

  7. Millard v. Biosources, Inc.

    156 Cal.App.4th 1338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 83 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Summarizing Hooker

  8. McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    27 Cal.4th 219 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "hirer of an independent contractor" can be held liable where, "by negligently furnishing unsafe equipment to the contractor, [hirer] affirmatively contributes to the injury of an employee of the contractor"

  9. Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc.

    202 Cal.App.4th 1439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the general contractor "delegated its obligation to comply with Cal-OSHA workplace regulations to Tverberg," even though the general contractor's conduct created the dangerous condition that led to Tverberg's injury

  10. Ray v. Silverado Constructors

    98 Cal.App.4th 1120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 44 times
    Finding Hooker liability where hirer prohibited contractor from erecting road barricade that might have prevented injury

  11. Section 36.5 - Affidavit in support of motion for preference

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 36.5   Cited 4 times

    An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. The affidavit is not admissible for any purpose other than a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 36.5 Added by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1232, Sec. 1.

  12. Rule 2.306 - Service of papers by fax transmission

    Cal. R. 2.306   Cited 12 times

    (a) Service by fax (1)Agreement of parties required Service by fax transmission is permitted only if the parties agree and a written confirmation of that agreement is made. (2)Service on last-given fax number Any notice or other document to be served must be transmitted to a fax machine maintained by the person on whom it is served at the fax machine telephone number as last given by that person on any document that the party has filed in the case and served on the party making service. (b) Service