30 Cited authorities

  1. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 983 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”
  2. Goodman v. Lozano

    47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 303 times
    Holding 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
  3. Shoemaker v. Myers

    52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no employee has a vested contractual right ... beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law"
  4. Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City

    34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 252 times
    Confirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history
  5. Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

    10 Cal.3d 222 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 534 times
    Finding statutes should be construed in light of the statutory framework as a whole
  6. Profes'l Engineers v. Kempton

    40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 161 times
    In 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and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35.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.)
  7. Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

    37 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Water Resources Control Board have concurrent jurisdiction over timber harvesting activities which affect water resources
  8. Fed. Land Bank v. Bismarck Co.

    314 U.S. 95 (1941)   Cited 302 times
    Holding that "the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle."
  9. Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California

    42 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Giving similarly limited weight to the legislative history of an earlier, unsuccessful measure
  10. Copley Press v. Sup. Court

    39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that newspaper was not entitled to records relating to peace officer's administrative appeal of disciplinary matter under California Public Records Act
  11. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. I § 3   Cited 265 times
    Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 305 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