§Why CasetextPricing

Demurrer To Complaint Regarding Roa2

Demurrer

31 Cited authorities

  1. Lazar v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,686 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

  2. Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service

    81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 486 times
    Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim

  3. Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Servs., LLC

    4 Cal.App.5th 574 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 150 times
    Noting that indemnity agreements generally do not allow for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in an action for breach of contract between the parties to that agreement, but that an exception exists where the indemnity provision includes express language providing for attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing the agreement

  4. Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    90 Cal.App.4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 188 times
    Finding a potential for coverage for defamation even though the underlying action did not allege all of the elements of that cause of action

  5. Fiol v. Doellstedt

    50 Cal.App.4th 1318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that a supervisor is not liable to third parties for the alleged sexually harassing conduct of his subordinates

  6. Manderville v. PCG&S Group, Inc.

    146 Cal.App.4th 1486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 130 times
    Reversing summary judgment for defendant; "[E]xculpatory clauses [which included a reliance disclaimer] do not preclude, as a matter of law, the [plaintiffs'] . . . justifiable reliance, and thus . . . do not bar the . . . claim for intentional misrepresentation . . . ."

  7. Richman v. Hartley

    224 Cal.App.4th 1182 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 96 times
    Stating the elements of such a claim under California law

  8. Owens v. Kings Supermarket

    198 Cal.App.3d 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supermarket did not owe a duty to a customer injured by the negligence of a third party on an adjacent public street because the supermarket had no control over the public street

  9. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  10. Neu-Visions Sports, Inc. v. Soren/McAdam/Bartells

    86 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 67 times
    Stating that a prediction that an appraiser would value the property at $5 million was the expression of an opinion as to a future fact

  11. Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10   Cited 1,051 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"

  12. Section 430.30 - Objection taken by demurrer; by answer

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30   Cited 375 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing demurrer to a complaint when the ground for objection appears on the face of the pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice

  13. Section 425.10 - Requirements of complaint or cross-complaint; amount demanded in damages not stated

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10   Cited 344 times
    Requiring complaint to contain " statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language"

  14. Section 1061 - Declaration or determinations not necessary or proper

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1061   Cited 294 times

    The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 1061 Added by Stats. 1921, Ch. 463.

  15. Section 3 - No part retroactive

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3   Cited 218 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Articulating the general rule of prospective application

  16. Section 430.50 - Demurrer to whole complaint or any cause of action stated; demurrer to whole answer or to any defenses set up

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.50   Cited 10 times

    (a) A demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or cross-complaint or to any of the causes of action stated therein. (b) A demurrer to an answer may be taken to the whole answer or to any one or more of the several defenses set up in the answer. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.50 Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 244.