9 Cited authorities

Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,282 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."
Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates
235 Cal.App.3d 1220 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 291 times
Upholding verdict piercing corporate veil where loan “guaranties indicate that Devcorp's survivability as a developer was intertwined with its dependence on Hahn Inc.,” two individuals were directors of both corporations, and when Devcorp fired its staff, Hahn Inc. used its employees to continue managing the business
Hoopes v. Dolan
168 Cal.App.4th 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 110 times
Applying equitable estoppel to a breach of contract claim when the plaintiff had induced the defendant to rely on a shared parking agreement, then sued for exclusive parking rights based on agreements he had failed to disclose
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp.
22 Cal.4th 1127 (Cal. 2000) Cited 134 times
Holding that a plaintiff, who sued the same defendant in two suits for two asbestos related diseases, was not barred by California's statute of limitations and waived the issue of the single action rule
Hopkins v. Kedzierski
225 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 59 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no right to jury trial on claims of equitable estoppel or equitable tolling
Bedolla v. Logan Frazer
52 Cal.App.3d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 127 times
Affirming trial court's denial of motion to amend cross-complaint to conform to proof where party failed to explain why motion was brought more than three years after cross-complaint was filed and on the fourth day of trial
Windsor Square Homeowners Assn. v. Citation Homes
54 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 13 times
In Windsor Square Homeowners Assn. v. Citation Homes (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 547, defendants asserted a res judicata defense in a negligence action.
Barr v. ACandS, Inc.
57 Cal.App.4th 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 7 times
Docket Nos. A074293, A073961, A076612. September 19, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Nos. 972249, 957209 and 978341, David A. Garcia and Raymond J. Arata, Jr., Judges. COUNSEL Brayton, Harley, Curtis, James L. Oberman, Philip A. Harley and Bryce C. Anderson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. St. Peter Cooper, M. Armon Cooper, Raymond L. Gill, Jackson Wallace, Gabriel A. Jackson, Peter K. Renstrom, Dillingham Murphy, Patrick J. Hagan, Edward E. Hartley, Michael
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,868 times 11 Legal Analyses
Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

Motion_to_bifurcate

9 Cited authorities

Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

Applying equitable estoppel to a breach of contract claim when the plaintiff had induced the defendant to rely on a shared parking agreement, then sued for exclusive parking rights based on agreements he had failed to disclose

Holding that a plaintiff, who sued the same defendant in two suits for two asbestos related diseases, was not barred by California's statute of limitations and waived the issue of the single action rule

Finding no right to jury trial on claims of equitable estoppel or equitable tolling

Affirming trial court's denial of motion to amend cross-complaint to conform to proof where party failed to explain why motion was brought more than three years after cross-complaint was filed and on the fourth day of trial

In Windsor Square Homeowners Assn. v. Citation Homes (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 547, defendants asserted a res judicata defense in a negligence action.

Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"