42 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,023 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
  2. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.

    47 Cal.3d 654 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 1,140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tort damages are not available for breach of an employment contract
  3. Durell v. Sharp Healthcare

    183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 535 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that actual reliance is an element of CUCL claims under the unlawful prong
  4. Buss v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 682 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurer may seek reimbursement of defense costs that may be allocated to claims that are not even potentially covered because a party desiring relief carries the burden of proof
  5. McBride v. Boughton

    123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 481 times
    Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery
  6. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 614 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief
  7. Peterson v. Cellco Partnership

    164 Cal.App.4th 1583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 308 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who challenged sales commissions on insurance policies but did not allege that "they could have bought the same insurance for a lower price either directly from the insurer or from a licensed agent" could not "show they suffered actual economic injury"
  8. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 257 times
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."
  9. McComber v. Wells

    72 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 296 times
    Holding that although appellant "is representing [himself] in this appeal [he] is not entitled to special treatment and is required to follow the rules"
  10. Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises

    217 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 319 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Neighbours, the court noted that section 2750.5 may occasionally "create a dual employment situation in which one employer is granted immunity from a personal injury action at law even though the employer's insurer is not responsible for payment of workers' compensation benefits to the injured employee...."
  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,840 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

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

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 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)