§Why CasetextPricing

DUKE, ESTATE OF

Appellants’ Petition for Review

45 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,839 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”

  2. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400

    25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,193 times
    Affirming summary judgment when plaintiffs evidence only raised a speculative possibility that defendant's breaches caused the plaintiff's injuries

  3. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,905 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  4. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.

    62 Cal.2d 861 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 1,205 times
    In Parsons v. Bristol Dev. Co., supra, 62 Cal.2d at page 866, the court commented that "even in the absence of extrinsic evidence, the trial court's interpretation of a written instrument must be accepted '"if such interpretation is reasonable, or if [it] is one of two or more reasonable constructions of the instrument" [citation].'"

  5. Pacific Gas E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co.

    69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,022 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court erroneously refused to consider extrinsic evidence offered to prove the meaning of a provision to which it was reasonably susceptible

  6. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty

    18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 317 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases in which, as here, the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action."

  7. Hess v. Ford Motor Company

    27 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 281 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of mistake cannot be used to create a new contract between the parties

  8. Chavez v. Carpenter

    91 Cal.App.4th 1433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Chavez v. Carpenter, 91 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2001), the Sixth District Court of Appeals found a factual dispute as to whether the decedent's parents were his dependents for the necessities of life.

  9. Estate of Russell

    69 Cal.2d 200 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 204 times
    Stating that in order to determine whether a written instrument is ambiguous or not, the court must examine the instrument in light of the circumstances surrounding its execution so as to ascertain what the parties meant by the words they used

  10. Giammarrusco v. Simon

    171 Cal.App.4th 1586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 38 times
    Noting California courts often find the Restatement persuasive

  11. Section 50 - Issue

    Cal. Prob. Code § 50   Cited 94 times

    "Issue" of a person means all his or her lineal descendants of all generations, with the relationship of parent and child at each generation being determined by the definitions of child and parent. Ca. Prob. Code § 50 Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.

  12. Section 11.96A.125 - Mistake of fact or law in terms of will or trust-Judicial and nonjudicial reform

    Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.125   Cited 6 times

    The terms of a will or trust, even if unambiguous, may be reformed by judicial proceedings under this chapter to conform the terms to the intention of the testator or trustor if it is proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that both the intent of the testator or trustor and the terms of the will or trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement. This does not limit the ability to reform the will or trust using the binding nonjudicial procedures of RCW

  13. Section 732.615 - Reformation to correct mistakes

    Fla. Stat. § 732.615   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Upon application of any interested person, the court may reform the terms of a will, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the testator's intent if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the testator's intent and the terms of the will were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement. In determining the testator's original intent, the court may consider evidence relevant to the testator's intent even though the evidence contradicts