§Why CasetextPricing

ARYEH v. CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

Appellant's Petition for Review

51 Cited authorities

  1. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,529 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

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

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,653 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. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,016 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  5. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,241 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

  6. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,256 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  7. Durell v. Sharp Healthcare

    183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 535 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that actual reliance is an element of CUCL claims under the unlawful prong

  8. Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

    144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 560 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"

  9. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 995 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)