§Why CasetextPricing

P. (F.) v. MONIER (To be called and continued to the September 2017 calendar.)

Appellant’s Petition for Review

80 Cited authorities

  1. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California

    55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 721 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court properly excluded expert testimony

  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,245 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident

  3. Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 846 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "because the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it abused its discretion"

  4. In re Marriage of Arceneaux

    51 Cal.3d 1130 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,381 times
    Addressing omissions in a statement of decision

  5. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 550 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

  6. Francois v. Goel

    35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 381 times
    Holding a trial court's inherent authority, on its own motion, to reconsider prior rulings is "derived from the California Constitution"

  7. Evangelatos v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 538 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a measure, which modified the traditional, common law joint and several liability doctrine, did not apply to claims for relief that had accrued before the effective date of the new law

  8. McComber v. Wells

    72 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 294 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"

  9. Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California

    157 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that these two statutory sections "involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts"

  10. DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.

    2 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 303 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding non-party employer, who was statutorily immune from suit, could be apportioned fault

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,508 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Rule 3.1590 - Announcement of tentative decision, statement of decision, and judgment

    Cal. R. 3.1590   Cited 372 times

    (a) Announcement and service of tentative decision On the trial of a question of fact by the court, the court must announce its tentative decision by an oral statement, entered in the minutes, or by a written statement filed with the clerk. Unless the announcement is made in open court in the presence of all parties that appeared at the trial, the clerk must immediately serve on all parties that appeared at the trial a copy of the minute entry or written tentative decision. (Subd (a) amended effective

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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