§Why CasetextPricing

CEJA v. RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC.

Respondent, Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., Petition for Review

120 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Leon

    468 U.S. 897 (1984)   Cited 10,251 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable

  2. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,848 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  3. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,249 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  4. People v. Williams

    16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 2,322 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members

  5. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,087 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

  6. People v. Chun

    45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,028 times
    Holding that Cal. Penal Code § 246 cannot be a predicate offense to support second-degree felony-murder conviction

  7. People v. Barton

    12 Cal.4th 186 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,499 times
    Holding that California trial courts have duty to sua sponte instruct on unreasonable self-defense when there is substantial evidence to support that theory of the defense; it is not an affirmative defense

  8. People v. Blakeley

    23 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 744 times
    Finding that under circumstances in which defendant testified "the gun just went off," jury could have properly found "the death was the result of the failure to exercise proper care under the circumstances" and thus supported conviction for involuntary manslaughter

  9. Palma v. U. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.

    36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 1,204 times
    Finding a triable issue of fact as to existence of a duty when a large commercial truck left unlocked with the keys in it overnight in a high crime industrial area was stolen and subsequently struck and injured plaintiff

  10. People v. Salas

    37 Cal.4th 967 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 495 times
    Holding trial court's failure to instruct on an affirmative defense was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

  11. Section 377.60 - Persons who may assert action

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60   Cited 478 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Creating a "cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another"

  12. Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.278   Cited 4,798 times

    (a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice

  13. 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