§Why CasetextPricing

Reply_to_motion_to_strike_

Reply

6 Cited authorities

  1. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 620 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"

  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. Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    110 Cal.App.3d 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 39 times

    Docket No. 41334. September 30, 1980. Appeal from Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 136224, Thomas F. McBride, Judge. COUNSEL Heller, Ehrman, White McAuliffe, Richard L. Goff, George G. Weickhardt and Marilyn R. Podemski for Defendant and Appellant. Jewel Leary, Howard H. Jewel, Boxer Elkind, Stanley Blackfield and Duane B. Beeson for Plaintiffs and Respondents and for Interveners and Respondents. OPINION NEWSOM, J. The present appeal is from judgments after jury trial in favor of respondents

  4. Brooks v. E.J. Willig Truck Transp. Co.

    40 Cal.2d 669 (Cal. 1953)   Cited 53 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's flight where the plaintiff's injuries were aggravated because of the defendant's flight

  5. Weisman v. Blue Shield of California

    163 Cal.App.3d 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding punitive damages on showing insurer had "overriding concern for a minimum-expense operation, regardless of the peril involved"

  6. Karl v. C.A. Reed Lumber Co.

    275 Cal.App.2d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 16 times
    In Karl v. C. A. Reed Lumber Co., 275 Cal.App.2d 358, 79 Cal.Rptr. 852, 854 (1969), for example, the court explained that "flight immediately after an accident is a circumstance that may be considered with other facts in the case as tending to show a consciousness of responsibility for the accident."