58 Cited authorities

  1. Mendiondo v. Centinela

    521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,429 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) do not apply
  2. People v. Avila

    38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 978 times
    Ruling reviewed based on information before court at the time of the hearing
  3. Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc.

    55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 500 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."
  4. Harris v. City of Santa Monica

    56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 280 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not purport to outlaw discriminatory thoughts, beliefs, or stray remarks that are unconnected to employment decisionmaking."
  5. Action v. City of Santa Monica

    41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 303 times
    Discussing privilege and noting its application to claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and slander
  6. People v. Hudson

    38 Cal.4th 1002 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 311 times
    Holding that “for purposes of section 2800.1, a pursuing peace officer's vehicle is ‘distinctively marked’ if its outward appearance during the pursuit exhibits, in addition to a red light and a siren, one or more features that are reasonably visible to other drivers and distinguish it from vehicles not used for law enforcement so as to give reasonable notice to the fleeing motorist that the pursuit is by the police”
  7. Campbell v. Regents of University of California

    35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7
  8. People v. Lamas

    42 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 184 times
    In People v. Lamas (2007) 42 Cal.4th 516, 519, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 179, 169 P.3d 102(Lamas), we “again consider[ed] the interplay between sections 186.22(a) and 12031(a)(2)(C),” this time specifying the sequence in which those provisions were to be applied.
  9. People v. Cruz

    13 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 241 times
    Holding that burglary of an inhabited vessel constituted burglary of "an inhabited dwelling house"
  10. Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation

    39 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that public school districts were not "persons" subject to suit under FCA because the enumerated list of covered "persons" under the statute does not include any words associated with public entities
  11. Section 1094.5

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5   Cited 2,878 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth standard of review
  12. Section 11111 - Professional review

    42 U.S.C. § 11111   Cited 339 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting immunity where specified standards of 42 U.S.C. § 11112 have been met
  13. Section 11112 - Standards for professional review actions

    42 U.S.C. § 11112   Cited 310 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Denying immunity if peer review board fails to give physician "adequate notice and hearing procedures"
  14. Section 11113 - Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in defense of suit

    42 U.S.C. § 11113   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Awarding attorney's fee to physician-defendants who defeat claims under “professional review” law that are “frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith”
  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 236 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