21 Cited authorities

  1. Pitchess v. Superior Court

    11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 1,689 times
    In Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1974), the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer's personnel file that is relevant to the defendant's ability to defend against a criminal charge.
  2. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

    16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 415 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding "plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's [or decedent's] exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer"
  3. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 320 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule
  4. Addison v. State of California

    21 Cal.3d 313 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 438 times
    Holding limitations period "suspended during the period in which plaintiffs' claims were pending in tribunal"
  5. Walker v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.3d 257 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 195 times
    In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418], the Supreme Court held that a trial court may reclassify a case as a "limited" civil action only where the court determines the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000.
  6. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 262 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the witness statements at issue were made to employees of the defendant, not to defendant's counsel or to agents of defendant's counsel.
  7. Bauguess v. Paine

    22 Cal.3d 626 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 154 times
    Holding attorney's fees was improper use of supervisory powers
  8. People v. Angelo Charles Castello

    65 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 77 times
    In Castello, the same Court of Appeal held that a Florida guilty plea constituted a strike under California law, despite the fact that the Florida court, after the defendant's guilty plea, withheld the adjudication of guilt until after the defendant completed probation.
  9. Cottle v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that, under the California Constitution, a trial court may use its inherent powers to manage complex tort litigation by ordering the exclusion of expert evidence if the plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case after complete discovery but before trial
  10. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co. v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 161 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 114 times
    In PacificTel. Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 161, 169 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854], quoting from Oceanside Union School Dist. v. SuperiorCourt, 58 Cal.2d 180, 185-186, footnote 4 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 375, 373 P.2d 439], we held that "`the prerogative writs should only be used in discovery matters to review questions of first impression that are of general importance to the trial courts and to the profession, and where general guidelines can be laid down for future cases.'"