§Why CasetextPricing

Motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication

undefined

5 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 5,019 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. United Community Church v. Garcin

    231 Cal.App.3d 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 160 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting the "question about what would have happened had [the lawyer] acted otherwise is one of fact unless reasonable minds could not differ as to the legal effect of the evidence presented"

  3. Section 437c - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Motion for summary judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c   Cited 8,428 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion

  4. Section 17150 - Liability of motor vehicle owner

    Cal. Veh. Code § 17150   Cited 175 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Addressing liability of private motor vehicle owners

  5. Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 238 times

    (a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication