Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Iqbal v. Hasty

Holding that Twombly's plausibility standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible"

In re Tobacco II Cases

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Mirkin v. Wasserman

Holding that in a class action, plaintiffs need only plead and prove actual reliance for the named plaintiffs and, if done, actual reliance will be presumed for the rest of the class

McWilliams v. City of Long Beach

In Long, for example, the court found that the defendant had solicited business in California (the forum state) not only because he called the plaintiff in California and entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff would recruit players for the defendant but also because the defendant entered into that agreement in order to develop a “presence” in California.

Woosley v. State of California

In Woosley, supra, 3 Cal.4th 758, 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 838 P.2d 758, we reaffirmed the principle that "[t]he circumstance that our decision overrules prior decisions of the Courts of Appeal does not in itself justify prospective application."

N. Cty. Comms. v. CA Catalog Tech

Holding that “[t]he district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ... as North County cannot establish a private right to compensation under the provisions of the Federal Communications Act”

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA

Nortel Networks Inc. v. Board of Equalization

In Nortel Networks Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1259, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 905 (Nortel), we held that an almost identical transaction satisfied the requirements of California's technology transfer agreement statutes (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 6011, subd. (c)(10) & 6012, subd. (c)(10)) and, as such, the manufacturer was responsible for paying sales taxes only on the tangible portions of the transaction (the equipment and instructions), but not the intangible portions (the software and rights to copy and use it).

Section 201 - Service and charges

Granting rulemaking authority

Section 18 - Actual or construction notice

Section 1656.1 - Addition of sales tax reimbursement to sales price

Establishing a presumption that a customer agrees to "reimburse" the retailer for the sales tax if, among other possibilities, the amount of the tax is shown on the customer's receipt

Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice