Reid v. Google, Inc.
50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,087 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Goodman v. Lozano
47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010) Cited 340 timesHolding that where a plaintiff's prior settlement exceeds the award received at trial, plaintiff's net monetary recovery is zero and does not compel the trial court to designate such party as a prevailing party
Shoemaker v. Myers
52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) Cited 460 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "no employee has a vested contractual right ... beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law"
Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City
34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004) Cited 252 timesConfirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history
Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
10 Cal.3d 222 (Cal. 1973) Cited 534 timesFinding statutes should be construed in light of the statutory framework as a whole
Profes'l Engineers v. Kempton
40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007) Cited 164 timesIn Kempton we concluded that both Government Code sections 14101 and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35. (Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1037-1041.)
Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
37 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2006) Cited 162 times 1 Legal AnalysesConcluding State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Water Resources Control Board have concurrent jurisdiction over timber harvesting activities which affect water resources
Fed. Land Bank v. Bismarck Co.
314 U.S. 95 (1941) Cited 316 timesHolding that "the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle."
Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California
42 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 2008) Cited 120 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure does not separately authorize recovering expert witness fees
Copley Press v. Sup. Court
39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006) Cited 119 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that newspaper was not entitled to records relating to peace officer's administrative appeal of disciplinary matter under California Public Records Act
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. I § 3 Cited 296 times 2 Legal AnalysesCreating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
Section 10-901 - Definitions
Md. Code, State Gov't § 10-901 Cited 1 times(a) In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated. (b) "Cost of providing the system product" means the cost to: (1) create, develop, and produce a new system product in printed, hard copy, digital, or other format; or (2) reproduce an existing system product in printed, hard copy, digital, or other format. (c) "Governmental unit" means: (1) the State or a political subdivision, unit, or instrumentality of the State; (2) a unit or instrumentality of a political subdivision of the
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