§Why CasetextPricing

Przygoda vs 1 More Usa Inc

Opposition Other

11 Cited authorities

  1. Smith v. Superior Court

    39 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 244 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a broad construction of the term "discharge" in § 201 made sense "in light of the important public policy at stake"

  2. Schachter v. Citigroup Inc.

    47 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 173 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding in dicta that "the shares of restricted stock issued to [plaintiff] also constituted a wage"

  3. Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc.

    129 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party to the plaintiff's contract cannot be liable" for various business torts, including interference with prospective economic advantage

  4. Inter. Business Machines Corp. v. Bajorek

    191 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "in a transferred case, the choice of law rules of the transferor state apply"

  5. DUVALL v. GALT MEDICAL CORPORATION

    No. C-07-03714 JCS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    No. C-07-03714 JCS. November 27, 2007 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 17] JOSEPH SPERO, Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION On June 11, 2007, Plaintiff Tim Duvall filed this action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, against Defendants Galt Medical Corporation ("Galt"), Theragenics Corporation ("Theragenics")

  6. Department of Industrial Relations v. UI Video Stores, Inc.

    55 Cal.App.4th 1084 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    Nos. A074260 A075144 05-16-1997 , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4586, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7571 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UI VIDEO STORES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Ramon Yuen-Garcia, Dept. of Industrial Relations, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Eric A. Grover, Robert G. Hulteng, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent. DOSSEE; STEIN, Acting P.J., and

  7. E.A. Strout Western Realty Agency, Inc. v. Lewis

    255 Cal.App.2d 254 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Strout v. Lewis, Admx., 104 Me. 65, which involved a question of fraud, the Court said: "The charge is a serious one and the law imposes upon the defendant (the one claiming fraud) the burden of substantiating it by clear and convincing proof."

  8. Unruh v. Smith

    123 Cal.App.2d 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)   Cited 23 times
    In Unruh, the Court of Appeal explained that "[a] party to a contract cannot take advantage of his own act or omission to escape liability thereon.

  9. Willson v. Turner Resilient Floors

    89 Cal.App.2d 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Wilson v. Turner Resilient Floors, Inc. (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 589 (Wilson), the plaintiff claimed he was entitled to a 25 percent commission on sales he procured under both an oral and written employment agreement.

  10. Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.

    57 Cal.App. 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co., 57 Cal. App. 1, 206 Pac. 653, it was said: "He who shakes the tree is the one to gather the fruit.