§Why CasetextPricing

Korea Trade Insurance Corporation vs. Chong Woen Lee

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

10 Cited authorities

  1. Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co.

    164 Cal.App.4th 1171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 406 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the essential elements of a breach of contract claim include either "plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance"

  2. Lucas v. County of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.App.4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that the "reason to know" in § 845.6 is an "objective standard" and finding that the duty to provide medical care under § 845.6 includes "cases where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care."

  3. Stoops v. Abbassi

    100 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 34 times

    B144337 Filed July 26, 2002 Certified for Publication Modified August 7, 2002 Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC174420, John P. Shook, Judge. Affirmed. Bray, Geiger, Rudquist Nuss and Peter A. Viri for Appellant. Aguilar Sebastinelli, Raul V. Aguilar, Allen J. Kent, and Robert A. Crook for Respondents. ALDRICH, J. INTRODUCTION Insurance Code section 1280.7 permits physicians and surgeons to become members of an interindemnity arrangement that creates a trust

  4. Kortmeyer v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.

    9 Cal.App.4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that the insured's failure to comply with section 11580.2 does not prejudice the insurer's subrogation rights because the Legislature amended the subrogation provision of section 11580.2 to allow the insurer to bring an action against the uninsured motorist within three years from the date that payment was made to the insured

  5. Sande v. Sande

    276 Cal.App.2d 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 7 times

    Docket No. 33261. September 23, 1969. APPEAL from a portion of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County relating to offset payments and modification of alimony and child support payments. Jerry Pacht, Judge. Affirmed. Rose Ehrmann and Norman D. Rose for Plaintiff and Appellant. Alvin B. Green for Defendant and Respondent. LILLIE, J. On December 28, 1965, plaintiff, a resident of Illinois, filed Complaint to Establish Foreign Judgment alleging that on March 9, 1962, in the Circuit Court

  6. Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood Etc. Co.

    35 Cal.App.2d 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 8 times
    In Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood etc. Co., the controlling point was that the answer was evasive and failed to raise an issue upon the material allegation of the complaint that the debt was due and owing.

  7. City and County of San Francisco v. Staude

    92 Cal. 560 (Cal. 1891)   Cited 7 times

    Department One Hearing In Bank Denied. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. COUNSEL Carroll Cook, and J. E. Foulds, for Appellants. Frank J. Fallon, and Curtis H. Lindley, for Respondent. JUDGES: Fitzgerald, C. Foote, C., and Belcher, C., concurred. OPINION FITZGERALD, Judge This action is brought by plaintiff against the defendants as sureties on a forfeited undertaking of bail. The answer contains no denial of any of the material allegations of the

  8. Section 581 - Dismissal of action

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 581   Cited 1,315 times
    Allowing voluntary dismissal without prejudice "at any time before the actual commencement of trial"

  9. Section 431.30 - General denial; denial made positively or according to information and belief of defendant

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30   Cited 149 times
    Requiring an answer to contain both a general or specific denial of factual allegations, § 431.30(b), and a statement of "any new matter constituting a defense," § 431.30(b)

  10. Section 431.20 - Material allegation not controverted taken as true; statement of new matter in answer deemed controverted

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.20   Cited 33 times

    (a) Every material allegation of the complaint or cross-complaint, not controverted by the answer, shall, for the purposes of the action, be taken as true. (b) The statement of any new matter in the answer, in avoidance or constituting a defense, shall, on the trial, be deemed controverted by the opposite party. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.20 Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 244.