20 Cited authorities

  1. LiMandri v. Judkins

    52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 496 times
    Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
  2. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 708 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"
  3. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 489 times
    Holding that intentional misrepresentation claim based on a false promise requires plaintiff to plead that "the promisor did not intend to perform at the time he or she made the promise and that it was intended to deceive or induce the promisee to do or not do a particular thing."
  4. Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co.

    21 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 167 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"
  5. Taylor v. Superior Court

    24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 240 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.
  6. Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp.

    92 Cal.App.4th 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 118 times
    Holding claim that carrier switched customer's long-distance service without his knowledge or consent was not barred by the filed rate doctrine
  7. Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co.

    148 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 158 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that evidence of post-injury conduct should have been admitted into evidence because it tended to prove that the defendant acted willfully
  8. Jones v. Conocophillips Co.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 63 times
    Recognizing "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"
  9. G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court

    49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 131 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.
  10. Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.

    251 Cal.App.2d 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 134 times
    Upholding $250,000 punitive damage award for drug manufacturer's failure to warn consumers about known hazards of its product
  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,891 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  12. 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 2,785 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
  13. Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10   Cited 1,031 times
    Explaining "[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"