§Why CasetextPricing

LEUNG v. VERDUGO HILLS HOSPITAL

Appellant's Answer to Petition for Review

28 Cited authorities

  1. McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde

    511 U.S. 202 (1994)   Cited 359 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in admiralty cases, "the liability of . . . nonsettling defendants should be calculated with reference to the jury's allocation of proportionate responsibility" such that non-settling defendants pay their proportionate share of the total judgment and are not entitled to a setoff for the amount paid by any settling defendant

  2. Ermoian v. Desert Hospital

    152 Cal.App.4th 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 259 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting reasonable belief standard

  3. Hess v. Ford Motor Company

    27 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of mistake cannot be used to create a new contract between the parties

  4. Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.

    114 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 256 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Striking expert opinion and noting that "plaintiff must offer an expert opinion that contains a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts have convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it is more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injury"

  5. Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co., Inc.

    187 Cal.App.4th 1326 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 131 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Miranda, defendant Bomel, a construction company, excavated approximately 1,600 cubic yards of dirt from an area in Southern California, and deposited it in a vacant lot 10-15 feet from Miranda's locksmith shop.

  6. Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

    163 Cal.App.3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 250 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming nonsuit where plaintiff's expert could not testify to a greater than "50-50 chance" that defendant's product contributed to development of disease

  7. Whalen v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 127 times
    Adopting the "settlement-first" method of reducing the verdict by first reducing the verdict by the amount of the settlement and then applying N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 to discount the remainder by the proportion of plaintiff s comparative negligence

  8. Rollins v. Pizzarelli

    761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that, when necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of a word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary

  9. Fein v. Permanente Medical Group

    38 Cal.3d 137 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 169 times
    Holding California Civil Code § 3333.2's cap on malpractice damages rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore constitutionally sound

  10. Franklin v. Kaypro Corp.

    884 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a bar order in a class action securities fraud case should bar future claims for contribution to. ensure that liability is equitably distributed among settling and non-settling defendants

  11. Section 300gg - Fair health insurance premiums

    42 U.S.C. § 300gg   Cited 77 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Relating to fair health insurance premiums

  12. Section 300gg-1 - Guaranteed availability of coverage

    42 U.S.C. § 300gg-1   Cited 27 times

    (a) Guaranteed issuance of coverage in the individual and group market Subject to subsections (b) through (e),1 each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage. (b) Enrollment (1) Restriction A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in coverage described in such subsection to open or special enrollment periods. (2)

  13. Section 300gg-41 - Guaranteed availability of individual health insurance coverage to certain individuals with prior group coverage

    42 U.S.C. § 300gg-41   Cited 8 times

    (a) Guaranteed availability (1) In general Subject to the succeeding subsections of this section and section 300gg-44 of this title, each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage (as defined in section 300gg-91(b)(1) of this title) in the individual market in a State may not, with respect to an eligible individual (as defined in subsection (b)) desiring to enroll in individual health insurance coverage- (A) decline to offer such coverage to, or deny enrollment of, such individual;

  14. Section 300gg-42 - Guaranteed renewability of individual health insurance coverage

    42 U.S.C. § 300gg-42   Cited 4 times

    (a) In general Except as provided in this section, a health insurance issuer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual. (b) General exceptions A health insurance issuer may nonrenew or discontinue health insurance coverage of an individual in the individual market based only on one or more of the following: (1) Nonpayment of premiums The individual has failed to pay premiums or contributions in

  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 339 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