§Why CasetextPricing

Motion_to_strike

Motion

10 Cited authorities

  1. Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.

    25 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 267 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages

  2. Taylor v. Superior Court

    24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 245 times
    In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

  3. Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc.

    24 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 24 Cal.App.4th 48, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 (1994), a California court held that setoff statutes much like those of Florida applied only in cases of joint and several liability.

  4. G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court

    49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 132 times
    In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.

  5. Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc.

    191 Cal.App.4th 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring facts pled in the complaint to "rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary under Civil Code section 3294 to state a claim for punitive damages"

  6. Smith v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.App.4th 1033 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 73 times
    Striking plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages where the complaint was "devoid of any factual assertions supporting a conclusion petitioners acted with oppression, fraud or malice"

  7. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp

    171 Cal.App.4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Upholding order striking defamation per se claim pleading only general damages in connection with television broadcast where retraction was not demanded in compliance with statute; stating that "the purpose of Civil Code section 48a, subdivision is to restrict a defamation plaintiff's right to recover general damages."

  8. Perkins v. Superior Court

    117 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 39 times
    Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"

  9. Ebaugh v. Rabkin

    22 Cal.App.3d 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 53 times
    Finding there was similarly no evidence that "any partner or managing agent of [the hospital] directed, authorized or subsequently ratified any allegedly malicious conduct of any employee with knowledge as to the malicious quality of such act or conduct."

  10. Brousseau v. Jarrett

    73 Cal.App.3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the "conclusory characterization of defendant's conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent" was "patently insufficient" to support the recovery of punitive damages