LiMandri v. Judkins
52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 503 timesHolding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.
35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983) Cited 711 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 493 timesHolding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”
Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co.
21 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 1999) Cited 168 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that in cases that require resolving "complicated . . . medical causation issues, the standard of proof ordinarily required is a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony that the defendant's conduct contributed to the plaintiff's injury"
Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979) Cited 241 timesIn 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.
Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp.
92 Cal.App.4th 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 119 timesHolding claim that carrier switched customer's long-distance service without his knowledge or consent was not barred by the filed rate doctrine
Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co.
148 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 160 times 1 Legal AnalysesConcluding that evidence of post-injury conduct should have been admitted into evidence because it tended to prove that the defendant acted willfully
Jones v. Conocophillips Co.
198 Cal.App.4th 1187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 65 timesRecognizing "exceptions to the privity requirement" "in cases involving foodstuffs, drugs and pesticides, substances marketed with the knowledge the purchaser may not be the ultimate consumer of the product"
G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court
49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 132 timesIn 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.
Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.
251 Cal.App.2d 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Cited 134 timesUpholding $250,000 punitive damage award for drug manufacturer's failure to warn consumers about known hazards of its product
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,480 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,821 times 10 Legal AnalysesStating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10 Cited 1,037 timesExplaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"