§Why CasetextPricing

ZHANG v. S.C. (CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE)

Real Party in Interest, California Capital Insurance Company, Opening Brief on the Merits

39 Cited authorities

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,417 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  2. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,652 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  3. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,202 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

  4. Bank of the West v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.4th 1254 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,373 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that policy terms must be read in their "ordinary and popular sense"

  5. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 754 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

  6. 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"

  7. Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 330 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

  8. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies

    46 Cal.3d 287 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 509 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 790.03(h) has no private right of action

  9. Rubin v. Green

    4 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 394 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "communications with 'some relation' to judicial proceedings" are absolutely immune from tort liability by the litigation privilege

  10. Brandt v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.3d 813 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 408 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney's fees can satisfy the element of damages in a first-party bad faith insurance claim because hiring a lawyer to deal with an insurance company's bad faith is akin to hiring a doctor to resolve injuries from a car accident

  11. Section 2695.1 - Preamble

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 2695.1   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Governing unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance and stating, “All licensees, as defined in these regulations, shall have thorough knowledge of the regulations contained in this subchapter”

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or