§Why CasetextPricing

Johnny Lucero vs. Janessa Clark

Motion to Strike

8 Cited authorities

  1. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 717 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between advertisers of cereal and consumers because "it is unnecessary to call upon the law of fiduciary relationships to perform a function for which it was not designed and is largely unsuited"

  2. Berkley v. Dowds

    152 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that the statute "does not create a cause of action as such, but provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions"

  3. Taylor v. Superior Court

    24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 242 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.

  4. Peterson v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.3d 147 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 121 times
    In Peterson v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d 147, 152, Justice Broussard undertook to provide the "proper guide for deciding whether to apply an overruling [civil] decision retroactively" by detailing how reliance on "considerations of fairness and public policy" was fully consistent with and "comprehended" the factors laid out by the high court in Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 297 [18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203-1204, 87 S.Ct. 1967].

  5. Grieves v. Superior Court

    157 Cal.App.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 43 times
    Directing trial court to grant motion to strike punitive damages where plaintiff alleged only negligence and no intentional conduct

  6. Marin v. Jacuzzi

    224 Cal.App.2d 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 61 times
    In Jacuzzi, the court said at page 552: "... A demurrer does not... admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of facts or law which may be alleged.... The use of the words wrongfully, wilfully and maliciously adds nothing to the pleadings except to convey a sense of outrage on the part of the appellant (Hancock v. Burns, 158 Cal.App.2d 785, 790)...."

  7. Dawes v. Superior Court

    111 Cal.App.3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    In Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 319], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the trial court to vacate its order striking allegations of the complaint that the driver, while intoxicated, ran a stop sign, zigzagged in and out of traffic at speeds in excess of 65 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone, all with reckless disregard of the probable consequences of said conduct and with reckless disregard of the safety of others.

  8. Snider v. Whitson

    184 Cal.App.2d 211 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. 18973. August 29, 1960. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Orla St. Clair, Judge. Reversed with directions. Vernon F. Humber for Appellants. Pelton, Gunther, Durney Gudmundson for Respondent. PAULSEN, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered after a general and special demurrer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. While there are four