13 Cited authorities

Christensen v. Superior Court
54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991) Cited 700 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains
Thing v. La Chusa
48 Cal.3d 644 (Cal. 1989) Cited 480 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, said plaintiff: is closely related to the injury victim; is present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and as a result suffers serious emotional distress"
Burgess v. Superior Court
2 Cal.4th 1064 (Cal. 1992) Cited 426 times
Holding "negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence"; requiring plaintiff alleging entitlement to damages based on "negligent causing of emotional distress" to establish all elements of negligence claim, including "duty"
Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc.
48 Cal.3d 583 (Cal. 1989) Cited 285 times
Holding that a plaintiff may recover for emotional distress without physical injury where the defendant breaches a duty "assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two"
Plotnik v. Meihaus
208 Cal.App.4th 1590 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 127 times
Holding that the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found, but the jury determines whether severe emotional distress exists
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. California
144 Cal.App.3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 136 times
Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged outrageous conduct where the defendant called the plaintiff a "no good son of a bitch," threatened to put the plaintiff in the hospital, and threatened the well-being of the plaintiff's wife and children
Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont
143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 28 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a pathway in a dog park "qualifies as a trail because it is designed and used for a recreational purpose"
Armenio v. County of San Mateo
28 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 32 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that subdivision (b) was intended to cover both trails providing access to recreation and trails on which recreational activities take place
Treweek v. City of Napa
85 Cal.App.4th 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 24 times
In Treweek, the Court of Appeal concluded a boat ramp connecting a city dock to the water did not qualify as a trail within the meaning of section 831.4, subdivision (b), based simply on the fact it connected the shore to the water where recreational activities occurred.
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,110 times 16 Legal Analyses
Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

Pamela Lacey vs. Luis Galindo

13 Cited authorities

Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains

Holding "negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence"; requiring plaintiff alleging entitlement to damages based on "negligent causing of emotional distress" to establish all elements of negligence claim, including "duty"

Holding that a plaintiff may recover for emotional distress without physical injury where the defendant breaches a duty "assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two"

Holding that the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found, but the jury determines whether severe emotional distress exists

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged outrageous conduct where the defendant called the plaintiff a "no good son of a bitch," threatened to put the plaintiff in the hospital, and threatened the well-being of the plaintiff's wife and children

Holding that a pathway in a dog park "qualifies as a trail because it is designed and used for a recreational purpose"

Finding that subdivision (b) was intended to cover both trails providing access to recreation and trails on which recreational activities take place

In Treweek, the Court of Appeal concluded a boat ramp connecting a city dock to the water did not qualify as a trail within the meaning of section 831.4, subdivision (b), based simply on the fact it connected the shore to the water where recreational activities occurred.

Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems