33 Cited authorities

  1. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 991 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
  2. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles

    27 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 643 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding public entity could not be liable under respondeat superior because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the public employees were engaged in conduct within the scope of employment that would render the public employee liable to the plaintiff
  3. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 805 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, the plaintiff alleged the hospital district's failure to perform a mandatory duty resulted in workers receiving "less than the prevailing wage while engaged on a public work."
  4. McCall v. Pacificare of California, Inc.

    25 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 500 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that various state law claims did not fall within Medicare's exclusive review provisions and therefore did not require administrative exhaustion
  5. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.

    3 Cal.4th 370 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 430 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an accountant is liable for negligent misrepresentation to a third party only if he knowingly supplies the information for the benefit of the third party, and the information is relied on by the third party in a transaction previously identified to the accountant, or a substantially similar transaction
  6. AAS v. SUPERIOR COURT

    24 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 208 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding diminished value of residences containing hazardous defects not compensable
  7. Reynolds v. Bement

    36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 180 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise
  8. Biakanja v. Irving

    49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958)   Cited 660 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decedent's intended beneficiary had a special relationship with the notary public who had prepared a defective will
  9. Wilcox v. Birtwhistle

    21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 175 times
    Acknowledging that, while not determinative, legislative silence after a court has construed a statute may give rise to an inference of acquiescence or passive approval
  10. J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory

    24 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 303 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a "special relationship" to allow recovery of lost business and lost profits arising out of negligent performance of renovation services by a defendant not in privity with the plaintiff
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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

  12. Rule 3.400 - Definition

    Cal. R. 3.400   Cited 17 times

    (a) Definition A "complex case" is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel. (b) Factors In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a) , the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve: (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)