§Why CasetextPricing

Pamela Lacey vs. Luis Galindo

Demurrer to Complaint

7 Cited authorities

  1. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 79 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"

  2. Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. California

    144 Cal.App.3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 134 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

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations

    41 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. A069744. December 21, 1995. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 962283, William J. Cahill, Judge. COUNSEL Brian J. McCaffrey and Steve Bachmann for Plaintiff and Appellant. H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KING, J. — I. INTRODUCTION In this case we hold that California's minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional as applied to an organization whose purpose is political advocacy, because the compelling state interest in ensuring

  7. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system