§Why CasetextPricing

Evox Productions Llc v. Kayak Software Corporation et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Second Affirmative Defense, Third Counterclaim and Seventeenth Affirmative Defense

41 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 239,217 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana

    336 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 973 times
    Holding that the deprivation of rights secured by the Contract Clause may “give rise to a cause of action under section 1983” and that Carter “is not to the contrary”

  3. City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.

    43 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 395 times
    Holding that when "ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury"

  4. Founding Members v. Newport Beach

    109 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 431 times
    Holding that extrinsic evidence could be used to help determine the meaning of an integrated contract, provided that the extrinsic evidence "is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible."

  5. Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.

    669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 295 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issue preclusion applied where the first district court "necessarily had to adjudicate" the same objections the same litigant raised in the second district court

  6. Klamath Water Users Pro. Ass'n. v. Patterson

    204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 383 times
    Holding that federal law controls the interpretation of a contract entered into pursuant to federal law when the United States is a party

  7. Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association

    55 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 237 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parol evidence may be used to prove promissory fraud

  8. Wolf v. Superior Court

    114 Cal.App.4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 241 times
    Holding summary adjudication of contract interpretation issue improper where critical term was reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning and neither party had “presented any direct or objective evidence regarding negotiating parties’ understanding of the term . . . at the time the parties entered into the contract”

  9. Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen

    908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 296 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied grant of a nonexclusive license to use a copyrighted work precludes a copyright infringement claim

  10. State v. Cont'l Ins. Co.

    55 Cal.4th 186 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 153 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Noting that courts must give meaning to the language of the insurance policy regarding appropriate allocation method

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1638 - Language governs interpretation

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1638   Cited 1,376 times
    Governing interpretation of contracts

  13. Section 1621 - Implied contract

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1621   Cited 223 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing validity of implied contracts