20 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 2,969 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
  2. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc.

    30 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 618 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."
  3. Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns Co.

    50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 657 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interference with plaintiff's performance may give rise to a claim for interference with contractual relations if plaintiff's performance is made more costly or more burdensome
  4. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 517 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of intentional or negligence interference with prospective economic advantage requires that a defendant's interference be wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself
  5. Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc.

    106 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 309 times
    Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment
  6. Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.

    23 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 257 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding "contractual breaches are generally excluded from comparative fault allocations; favorably citing comment in treatise that "comparative fault [is] inapplicable to actions that are fully contractual in their gravamen"
  7. Nestle v. City of Santa Monica

    6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 465 times
    In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.
  8. Mintz v. Blue Cross of California

    172 Cal.App.4th 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contract"
  9. Foxborough v. Van Atta

    26 Cal.App.4th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 149 times
    Affirming denial of leave to amend in circumstances in which "proposed amendment would have been futile because it was barred by the statute of limitations"
  10. Maglica v. Maglica

    66 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 117 times
    Describing quantum meruit as recovery of "the reasonable value of the services rendered provided they were of direct benefit to the defendant."
  11. Section 2510 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 2510   Cited 4,205 times   73 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. Section 472 - Time for amending pleading by party of course

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 472   Cited 267 times
    Providing that " party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike"