Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.
35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983) Cited 717 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that no fiduciary relationship existed between advertisers of cereal and consumers because "it is unnecessary to call upon the law of fiduciary relationships to perform a function for which it was not designed and is largely unsuited"
Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994) Cited 343 timesHolding that a suit to enjoin the "Old Joe Camel" cigarette advertising campaign targeting minors pursuant to California state law is not preempted by the Federal Act
Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle
178 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 206 times 10 Legal AnalysesRuling on a demurrer
Aceves v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
192 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 197 timesHolding that a bank's promise—to work with the plaintiff on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification if the plaintiff no longer pursued relief in bankruptcy court—was a clear and unambiguous promise to negotiate, even though it left open the terms of any loan modification agreement that might be discussed
Garcia v. World Savings, FSB
183 Cal.App.4th 1031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 171 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that an "oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale or to allow a borrower to delay monthly mortgage payments is unenforceable"
Toscano v. Greene Music
124 Cal.App.4th 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 156 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that lost future wages are recoverable if they are not too speculative and analogizing to lost profits
Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.
123 Cal.App.3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 240 timesHolding that an entitlement to future possession is insufficient to maintain an action for conversion
Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
236 Cal.App.4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 66 timesAffirming trial court's finding that lender's alleged promise to postpone foreclosure sale was unenforceable absent a signed writing
Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court
148 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 68 timesConcluding that, "[o]n balance, the judicial notice taken of the [contract] does not adequately show that Aquila or its predecessor purposefully availed itself of the benefits of forum contacts through this particular relationship with SMUD, so as to create the kind of relationship with California . . . consumers to justify specific jurisdiction on these claims"
Shaffer v. Debbas
17 Cal.App.4th 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 84 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding jury could find estoppel where plaintiffs delayed suit in reliance on defendants' promises to repair property damage
Section 1322 - Contents of plan
11 U.S.C. § 1322 Cited 5,680 times 13 Legal AnalysesEstablishing what the plan "shall" provide