§Why CasetextPricing

McWILLIAMS v. CITY OF LONG BEACH

Appellant’s Motion

14 Cited authorities

  1. Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim

    25 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance because "there was no breach on which to predicate it," the court stated that ". . . specific performance is a remedy for breach of contract, a cause of action which requires proof the contract was breached"

  2. Colarossi v. Coty US Inc.

    97 Cal.App.4th 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Colarossi v. Coty US Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 1142, 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), the court found the plaintiff's past positive evaluations relevant only as additional evidence supporting what it deemed to be a "smoking gun" statement from a supervisor that she was going to get revenge on everyone who participated in a sexual harassment investigation against her, and it was "undisputed that [the plaintiff] was named the company's best merchandiser in all the country shortly before" the investigation.

  3. In re L. B.

    110 Cal.App.4th 1420 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 71 times
    Presuming that notice complied with ICWA "in the absence of any evidence in the record to the contrary or any challenge to this representation in juvenile court"

  4. Borror v. Department of Investment

    15 Cal.App.3d 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 56 times
    In Borror v. Department of Investment, supra, 15 Cal.App.3d at pages 543 and 544, the court found a right to counsel in the first sense but specifically rejected the claimed right in the second sense.

  5. Hasso v. Hasso

    148 Cal.App.4th 329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 8 times
    In Hasso v. Hasso (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 329, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 667(Hasso), the issue was whether cash distributed to a trust by a corporation, of which the trust was a shareholder, should be allocated to income or principal.

  6. Guardianship of Marino

    30 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 26 times
    Awarding custody to maternal aunt who had cared for child for six years with visitation to natural father

  7. De Angeles v. Roos Bros.

    244 Cal.App.2d 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 19 times

    Docket No. 22327. August 23, 1966. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Byron Arnold, Judge. Judgment affirmed; appeal from order dismissed. Action for breach of contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Heller, Ehrman, White McAuliffe, Caspar W. Weinberger, M. Laurence Popofsky, David Livingston and J.W. Ehrlich for Defendants and Appellants. Joseph L. Alioto, Frederick P. Furth and Gerhard Stoll

  8. California Packing Corp. v. Transport Indem. Co.

    275 Cal.App.2d 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that a “forklift” was covered by the policy language, in part because the parties conceded a forklift was a “land motor vehicle”

  9. Crofoot Lumber, Inc. v. Lewis

    210 Cal.App.2d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. 20304. December 12, 1962. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. Raymond J. Sherwin, Judge. Modified and affirmed. Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Action for damages for wrongful removal of timber from plaintiff's land. Judgment for plaintiff modified and affirmed. Leo M. Cook, Morris M. Grupp and Rawles, Nelson Golden for Defendants and Appellants. Spurr Brunner, Sullivan, Roche, Johnson Farraher, Theodore A. Kolb and Albert Bianchi for Plaintiff and

  10. Replogle v. Ray

    48 Cal.App.2d 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)   Cited 16 times
    In Replogle v. Ray, 48 Cal.App.2d 291 [ 119 P.2d 980], also relied upon by plaintiff, the existence of a joint venture was conceded and the only question before the trial court and on appeal was the scope and duration of the venture.

  11. Section 1220 - Statement of party opponent

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1220   Cited 1,003 times
    Peering 1966

  12. Section 909 - Factual determinations contrary to or in addition to those made by trial court

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 909   Cited 643 times
    Reviewing court may make factual determinations in addition to those made by trial court

  13. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 593 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice

  14. Rule 8.54 - Motions

    Cal. R. 8.54   Cited 169 times

    (a)Motion and opposition (1) Except as these rules provide otherwise, a party wanting to make a motion in a reviewing court must serve and file a written motion stating the grounds and the relief requested and identifying any documents on which the motion is based. (2) A motion must be accompanied by a memorandum and, if it is based on matters outside the record, by declarations or other supporting evidence. (3) Any opposition must be served and filed within 15 days after the motion is filed. (Subd