§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. LOPER

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

46 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,848 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. People v. Rodrigues

    8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 2,434 times
    Holding that the court's instructions as a whole properly guided the jury's consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 "adequately expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]"

  3. In re Rosenkrantz

    29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,196 times
    Holding that Governor's reversal of parole grant is subject to state judicial review

  4. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  5. People v. Ault

    33 Cal.4th 1250 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 420 times
    Holding that standard of review of prejudice in a case where the trial court granted a motion for new trial was abuse of discretion

  6. People v. Gallardo

    77 Cal.App.4th 971 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 234 times
    Treating an appeal from the trial court's denial of a request for resentencing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus

  7. People v. Mena

    54 Cal.4th 146 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that prejudice under Watson " ‘must necessarily be based upon reasonable probabilities rather than upon mere possibilities’ "

  8. Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.

    166 Cal.App.3d 1012 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 225 times
    Upholding judgment for "conspiracy to fraudulently deny insurance benefits" based, among other things, on evidence the insurer's claims adjusters were instructed by their supervisor to find ways to deny claims

  9. In re Lazor

    172 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 108 times

    No. H032842. April 7, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 87874, Rene Navarro, Judge. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer A. Neill, Anya M. Binsacca and Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner State of California. Sanders Associates and Steven C. Sanders for Respondent P.F. Lazor. OPINION ELIA, J. By decision dated February 23, 2006, California's

  10. Supervalu, Inc. v. Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc.

    175 Cal.App.4th 64 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment where "[t]he contractual language [was] not reasonably susceptible to [the non-movant]'s interpretation."