§Why CasetextPricing

PATTERSON v. DOMINOS PIZZA

Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

18 Cited authorities

  1. Denham v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 4,219 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the well settled principle that on appeal, "[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown"

  2. People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.

    33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 420 times
    Holding that a voidable judgment is "valid until it is set aside"

  3. Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 205 times
    Holding that the phrase "a document" in Cal. Rule of Court 8.104, which governs the timeliness of appeals in specified circumstances, means "a single, self-sufficient document satisfying all of the rule's conditions"

  4. Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico

    15 Cal.3d 660 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 332 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 669, we observed that Benoit extended the principle of constructive filing announced in People v. Slobodion, supra, 30 Cal.2d at page 367, "to situations wherein an incarcerated criminal appellant has made arrangements with his attorney for the filing of a timely appeal and has displayed diligent but futile efforts in seeking to insure that the attorney has carried out his responsibility."

  5. Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc.

    2004 WI 86 (Wis. 2004)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee because it did not exercise "day-to-day" control over the franchisee's business akin to an employer's control over his employees

  6. Adoption of Alexander S

    44 Cal.3d 857 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 115 times
    Acknowledging writ relief may be granted even after an appeals deadline has elapsed where there exist special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ the legal remedy

  7. Leone v. Medical Board

    22 Cal.4th 660 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 79 times
    In Leone, we held that "an appellate court must judge [a writ] petition on its procedural and substantive merits" if the "petition was the only authorized mode of appellate review."

  8. Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.

    2 Cal.3d 956 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 174 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the required-vehicle exception

  9. Rainey v. Langen

    2010 Me. 56 (Me. 2010)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment to Domino's on vicarious liability claims because Domino's quality control requirements and minimum operational standards did not reserve control of the franchisee's day-to-day operations

  10. Cislaw v. Southland Corp.

    4 Cal.App.4th 1284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 48 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cislaw, on appeal from a summary judgment, the court held that there were no triable facts giving rise to a potential agency relationship where the franchise agreement gave the franchisees the right to control: 1) all employment decisions; 2) the products the franchisee would sell; 3) the vendors the franchisee would patronize; and 4) the decision to sell the product that the plaintiffs alleged killed their son, clove cigarettes.

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,279 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 11   Cited 304 times
    Authorizing the taking of such evidence

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.268 - Rehearing

    Cal. R. 8.268   Cited 77 times

    (a)Power to order rehearing (1) On petition of a party or on its own motion, a reviewing court may order rehearing of any decision that is not final in that court on filing. (2) An order for rehearing must be filed before the decision is final. If the clerk's office is closed on the date of finality, the court may file the order on the next day the clerk's office is open. (b)Petition and answer (1) A party may serve and file a petition for rehearing within 15 days after: (A) The filing of the decision;