§Why CasetextPricing

Netlist, Inc v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.

RESPONSE to re Order

15 Cited authorities

  1. Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.

    259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,325 times
    Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure

  2. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that disclosure or use of a trade secret in violation of a nondisclosure agreement is disclosure or use by improper means

  3. Tyrone v. Superior Court

    151 Cal.App.4th 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 136 times
    Discussing "preclusive effect" of the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings

  4. People v. Arriaga

    58 Cal.4th 950 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 111 times
    In Arriaga, the defendant pled guilty to possession of a sawed-off shotgun in 1986; the reporter's transcript and notes from the plea hearing were destroyed after 10 years.

  5. Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World, Inc.

    35 Cal.App.4th 880 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 86 times
    Applying gap filling provisions of the UCC and custom and usage to a form distributorship contract

  6. Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg

    5 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 116, 123, 284 Cal. Rptr. 318, "substantial evidence of [a defendant's] financial condition" is required to award a plaintiff punitive damages pursuant to the CUTSA

  7. Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc.

    205 Cal.App.3d 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 35 times

    Docket No. B022198, October 25, 1988. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C378886, Charles H. Older, Judge. COUNSEL Mark Brifman and Joann R. Deutch for Defendant and Appellant. Raoul Y. Roth for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION KENNARD, J. Defendant advertising agency, Scott, Lancaster, Mills Atha, Inc., appeals from a judgment following a court trial in May 1986 rendering it liable for payment of delinquent accounts for air time run on plaintiff independent television stations

  8. Settle v. State

    228 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2d Civil No. B249236 2014-07-23 Kathryn SETTLE, Plaintiff, v. STATE of California, Defendant and Respondent; James McKiernan, Objector and Appellant. See 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Judgment, § 235. Martin J. Tangeman, Judge, Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo. (Super. Ct. No. CV120119) YEGAN See 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Judgment, § 235. Martin J. Tangeman, Judge, Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo. (Super. Ct. No. CV120119) James McKierman, San Luis Obispo

  9. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n v. Red Zone Capital Partners II

    870 F. Supp. 2d 881 (C.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Case No. CV 10–8833 AHM (FMOx). 2012-04-30 HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. RED ZONE CAPITAL PARTNERS II, etc., et al. Amy Riley Lucas, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Linda J. Smith, Robin M. Wall, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Bradley S. Phillips, Kyle Alexander Casazza, Manuel F. Cachan, Peter E. Gratzinger, Ronald L. Olson, Soraya C. Kelly, Munger Tolles & Olson, Martin D. Katz, Whitney Beth Walters, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Los Angeles, CA, for Red

  10. Garter v. Metzdorf Associates

    217 Cal.App.2d 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    Docket No. 185. July 2, 1963. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert B. Lambert, Judge. Affirmed. Action in unlawful detainer to recover possession of business premises, and for rent, damages for withholding possession, attorneys' fees and costs. Judgment confirming possession in plaintiffs but denying other relief, affirmed. Roland S. Woodruff for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lawrence E. Silverton, Paul P. Selvin and Selvin Cohen for Defendants and Respondents. BROWN (R

  11. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,459 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,060 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  13. Section 3426.1 - Definitions

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1   Cited 867 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Defining trade secrets under CUTSA similarly

  14. Section 3426.3 - Damages for actual loss or unjust enrichment

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3   Cited 137 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Permitting a complainant to recover for unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation