13 Cited authorities

Serrano v. Priest
5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971) Cited 538 times
Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection
Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.
19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 117 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision
Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp.
1 Cal.App.4th 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 116 times
Affirming jury's finding that parties had enforceable contract
Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar
69 Cal.App.4th 166 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 64 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Breneric, the California Court of Appeal held that a homeowner who was denied an application to build an addition to an existing residence could not assert a cognizable substantive due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Del Mar. Id. at 184.
Frantz v. Blackwell
189 Cal.App.3d 91 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 52 times
In Frantz, a developer, who had previously been sued by an investor-speculator, refused to sell the speculator property after the first litigation was settled.
Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist.
50 Cal.App.4th 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 24 times
In Picton, for example, the California Court of Appeal held unenforceable as against public policy a contract in which a high school agreed to keep confidential allegations of improper misconduct against a teacher.
Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders
143 Cal.App.3d 571 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 42 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that plaintiff was entitled to damages for past breaches of the agreement, in addition to specific performance
King v. Stanley
32 Cal.2d 584 (Cal. 1948) Cited 120 times
In King v. Stanley, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's offer to buy one of two lots and made a counteroffer to sell both lots for $2,000 each.
Landberg v. Landberg
24 Cal.App.3d 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972) Cited 58 times
Holding that "basic principles of the law of contract" include: " a valid acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, and qualified acceptance constitutes a rejection terminating the offer; it is a new proposal or counteroffer which must be accepted by the former offeror now turned offeree before a binding contract results."
Redmond v. Secure Horizons, Pacificare, Inc.
60 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 6 times
Finding that claims for denied and delayed reimbursement arose under Medicare Act even though they were presented as contract claims

Four Season Care, Inc. vs. Dong Shin Church of California, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

Affirming jury's finding that parties had enforceable contract

In Breneric, the California Court of Appeal held that a homeowner who was denied an application to build an addition to an existing residence could not assert a cognizable substantive due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Del Mar. Id. at 184.

In Frantz, a developer, who had previously been sued by an investor-speculator, refused to sell the speculator property after the first litigation was settled.

In Picton, for example, the California Court of Appeal held unenforceable as against public policy a contract in which a high school agreed to keep confidential allegations of improper misconduct against a teacher.

Finding that plaintiff was entitled to damages for past breaches of the agreement, in addition to specific performance

In King v. Stanley, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's offer to buy one of two lots and made a counteroffer to sell both lots for $2,000 each.

Finding that claims for denied and delayed reimbursement arose under Medicare Act even though they were presented as contract claims