§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum_of_points_and_authorities

Opposition

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance

    4 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 122 times
    Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."

  3. Peterson v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.3d 147 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 122 times
    In Peterson v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d 147, 152, Justice Broussard undertook to provide the "proper guide for deciding whether to apply an overruling [civil] decision retroactively" by detailing how reliance on "considerations of fairness and public policy" was fully consistent with and "comprehended" the factors laid out by the high court in Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 297 [18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203-1204, 87 S.Ct. 1967].

  4. Tresemer v. Barke

    86 Cal.App.3d 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 68 times
    In Tresemer v. Barke, 86 Cal.App.3d 656, 150 Cal.Rptr. 384 (1978), plaintiff brought suit against a physician to recover damages for injuries resulting from plaintiff's use of an intrauterine device.

  5. Flyer's Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.

    185 Cal.App.3d 1149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to the tort of another doctrine because connection between third party's actions leading to incursion of fees and defendant's negligence was "too attenuated" to be a "proximate result"

  6. Gombos v. Ashe

    158 Cal.App.2d 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 106 times
    Holding "negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify" punitive damages

  7. Grieves v. Superior Court

    157 Cal.App.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 43 times
    Directing trial court to grant motion to strike punitive damages where plaintiff alleged only negligence and no intentional conduct

  8. Perkins v. Superior Court

    117 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 39 times
    Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"

  9. Brousseau v. Jarrett

    73 Cal.App.3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the "conclusory characterization of defendant's conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent" was "patently insufficient" to support the recovery of punitive damages

  10. Davis v. Hearst

    160 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1911)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that an article's explanatory text did not negate the defamatory nature of the headline