§Why CasetextPricing

Reply To Opposition

Reply

13 Cited authorities

  1. Sangster v. Paetkau

    68 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 318 times
    Analyzing the probable cause of a lay person without drawing any distinction, noting "A litigant will lack probable cause for his action either if he relies upon facts which he has no reasonable cause to believe to be true, or if he seeks recovery upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to him"

  2. Lewis v. County of Sacramento

    93 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 264 times
    Lamenting failure to provide adequate record citations, but choosing to disregard noncompliance so as not to further delay the appeal

  3. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp.

    33 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial compliance inapplicable because "[n]othing suggests that the [required item] is pointless or optional"

  4. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  5. Trujillo v. First American Registry, Inc.

    157 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that where a plaintiff has "suffered no actual damage, [her] CCRAA cause of action fails as a matter of law"

  6. Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

    170 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 70 times
    In Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 (Oldcastle), the defendants' separate statement in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment listed only four of the plaintiff's 46 factual statements as disputed.

  7. DuBeck v. California Physicians' Service

    234 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In DuBeck the issue of waiver was raised in the papers opposing the motion for summary judgment and the lower court failed to address it.

  8. Connor v. First Student, Inc.

    5 Cal.5th 1026 (Cal. 2018)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses

    S229428 08-20-2018 Eileen CONNOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Hunter Pyle Law, Hunter Pyle, Tanya Tambling, Rachel Evans, Chad Saunders, Oakland; Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker, Lee & Jackson, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, Todd F. Jackson and Catha Worthman, Oakland, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers, Assistant Attorney General, Michele

  9. Roth v. Malson

    67 Cal.App.4th 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 40 times

    C027262 (Super. Ct. No. CVCS953855) Filed October 28, 1998 Appeal from the Superior Court of Sutter County, No. CVCS953855, Perry Parker, Judge. Judge of the Sutter Municipal Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Wanland Bernstein, Donald M. Wanland, Jr., and Daniel Boone for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rich, Fuidge, Morris Iverson, Inc., Roland K. Iverson, Jr., and Kathleen M. Bock for Defendant and Respondent. SIMS, Acting P.J. In an

  10. Shepherd v. Jones

    136 Cal.App.3d 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. 50767. October 27, 1982. Appeal from Superior Court of Marin County, No. 76039, Peter A. Smith, Judge. COUNSEL Campbell, Warburton, Britton, Fitzsimmons Smith and C. Michael Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant. Douglas J. Maloney, County Counsel, Allen A. Haim, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrick K. Faulkner, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION BARRY-DEAL, J. Wallace Shepherd brought this action for damages under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U

  11. Section 1638 - Language governs interpretation

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1638   Cited 1,379 times
    Governing interpretation of contracts

  12. Section 1635 - Generally

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1635   Cited 181 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Codifying these interpretive principles

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

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 231 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