§Why CasetextPricing

APPLE v. S.C. (KRESCENT)

Petitioner's Petition for Review

14 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,021 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"

  2. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.

    4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 506 times
    Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

  3. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  4. Hahn v. Mirda

    147 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 207 times
    Holding plaintiff, to state viable claim for fraud based on "concealment," must allege defendant was "under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff"

  5. Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.

    51 Cal.4th 524 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 175 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court's ruling that ZIP code information constitutes personal information within the meaning of section 1747.08 applies retrospectively

  6. Serrano v. Priest

    5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 534 times
    Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

  7. Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust

    153 Cal.App.4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 131 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP did not apply to a claim for breach of contract because "[t]he overall thrust of the complaint challenge[d] the manner in which the parties privately dealt with one another, on both contractual and tort theories, and d[id] not principally challenge the collateral activity of pursuing governmental approvals."

  8. Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc.

    147 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the CLRA does not apply to credit card transactions

  9. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.

    116 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the California Unfair Business Competition Law allowed plaintiff to sue to enjoin the insurer's activity to benefit others even though plaintiff had never been personally injured by it

  10. Absher v. Autozone, Inc.

    164 Cal.App.4th 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that subdivision applies only to purchase transactions

  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)