§Why CasetextPricing

Motion For Summary Judgment

Motion

24 Cited authorities

  1. Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns Co.

    50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 636 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interference with plaintiff's performance may give rise to a claim for interference with contractual relations if plaintiff's performance is made more costly or more burdensome

  2. Hersant v. Department of Social Services

    57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 454 times
    Holding that "to avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.

  3. Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Am. Asphalt S., Inc.

    2 Cal.5th 505 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 81 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a tortious interference claim "protects the expectation that the relationship eventually will yield the desired benefit, not necessarily the more speculative expectation that a potentially beneficial relationship will eventually arise."

  4. Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark

    52 Cal.3d 988 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 144 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unlicensed contractor cannot receive compensation for its services under B & P § 7031

  5. Asdourian v. Araj

    38 Cal.3d 276 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Asdourian, the court, citing Vitek with approval, explained, "a contract made in violation of [the statute] does not involve the kind of illegality which automatically renders an agreement void.

  6. WSS Industrial Construction, Inc. v. Great West Contractors, Inc.

    162 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting plaintiff's attempt to segregate "the discrete tasks of ordering anchor bolts and preparing shop drawings" because they "were performed in furtherance of the scope of the work included in the [contract]"

  7. Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd.

    222 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence supporting a lost profits calculation where the business "does not fit neatly into the established business versus new business paradigm"

  8. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. BBIC Investors, LLC

    136 Cal.App.4th 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 24 times

    No. A109876 January 31, 2006 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II.C. and II.E. Appeal from the Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 2001-019199, William A. McKinstry, Judge. Farella Braun Martel, Jeffrey A. Sykes, Anthony D. Giles; McQueen, Ashman Mollis, James A. McQueen and Brian E. Bisol for Plaintiff and Appellant. Reed Smith, Paul D. Fogel, Dennis Peter Maio,

  9. Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipians

    188 Cal.App.4th 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Enforcing oral home improvement contract against "well-educated" homeowners on a "high-end" project

  10. Arya Group, Inc. v. Cher

    77 Cal.App.4th 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times

    B128557 Filed January 13, 2000 Certified for Partial Publication Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of footnote 2 and parts II through VI of the Discussion. Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. BC182770. Ronald E. Cappai, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part, Castle Lax, Nomi L. Castle and Julie Fleming for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mandel Norwood, S. Jerome Mandel