§Why CasetextPricing

Brief Closing Argument Brief of Defendant Jose Ontiveros

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.

    23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 563 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

  2. Marin Storage Trucking v. Benco Contracting

    89 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that "ordinarily one who signs an instrument which on its face is a contract is deemed to assent to all its terms," and that " party cannot avoid the terms of a contract on the ground that he or she failed to read it before signing."

  3. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

    17 Cal.3d 699 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 324 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "to predicate the legality of a consensual arbitration agreement upon the parties' express waiver of jury trial would be as artificial as it would be disastrous" because parties "well know" that arbitration "disputes are not resolved by juries"

  4. Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.

    197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 82 times
    Noting that under the holding in Concepcion the "[g]eneral state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies 'only to arbitration or that derive[its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue'"

  5. In re Marriage of Cloney

    91 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 58 times
    Finding that an escrow agent's knowledge should be imputed to a principal

  6. Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co.

    209 Cal.App.3d 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 58 times
    Evaluating evidence of agency to determine personal jurisdiction

  7. Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno

    163 Cal.App.4th 4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 4, 8-12, the court addressed whether the plaintiffs had raised a triable issue regarding whether the defendant diocese was on notice that its priest may have been sexually abusing minors.

  8. Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center

    168 Cal.App.3d 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that "the court in Tunkl clearly had in mind medical, legal, housing, transportation or similar services which must necessarily be utilized by the general public."

  9. Tippett v. Terich

    37 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tippett v. Terich, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1517, the court held that a UCL action was not available to a plaintiff who sought to compel payment of prevailing wages.

  10. Paularena v. Superior Court

    231 Cal.App.2d 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 61 times
    In Paularena the trial court refused to allow the rescinding plaintiffs a jury trial, and the Court of Appeal issued a writ directing the trial court to allow trial by jury.

  11. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,432 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements

  12. Section 1014 - Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance

    18 U.S.C. § 1014   Cited 1,797 times   106 Legal Analyses
    Penalizing false statement to influence federal loan or credit agency

  13. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007