§Why CasetextPricing

LOEFFLER v. TARGET CORPORATION

Appellants’ Reply to Supplemental Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,557 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

  2. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

    55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 667 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."

  3. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.

    23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 555 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

  4. Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co.

    9 Cal.3d 566 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 810 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "when the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability" for violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

  5. Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Lodge

    46 So. 3d 416 (Ala. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Reversing a judgment of ejectment on its merits because the plaintiff did not have legal title to or possession of the property at the time it filed its complaint, applying and quoting Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-280

  6. SKF Farms v. Superior Court

    153 Cal.App.3d 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 31 times

    Docket Nos. 31427, 31428. March 15, 1984. COUNSEL Sutherland Gerber, Ravinder Samra, Ronis, Ronis Ronis and John George Ronis for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Hart Michaelis, James I. Michaelis, Engstrom, Lipscomb Lack and Douglas S. Knoll for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION BUTLER, J. Petitioners SKF Farms and Jerry Gonzales, Sr., Jerry Gonzales, Jr., and Victor J. Gonzales (collectively called petitioners) seek writs of mandate after the superior court sustained without leave to

  7. Matter of 18th Ave. Development Corp.

    10 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    Bankruptcy No. 79-01230-BKC-SMW. Adv. No. 79-0006-BKC-SMW-A. January 30, 1980. Robert A. Schatzman, Miami, Fla., for defendant. Michael H. Weisser, North Miami Beach, Fla., for plaintiffs. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, STANLEY SCHWEIGER and MYRNA SCHWEIGER, for relief from the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, and to determine the priority of their claim of lien. The Debtor, 18TH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT