72 Cited authorities

  1. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 803 times   5 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
  2. Sargon Enters., Inc. v. Univ. of S. Cal.

    55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 447 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting expert testimony which assumed that the plaintiff's "market share would have increased spectacularly over time to levels far above anything it had ever reached"
  3. In re Marriage of Arceneaux

    51 Cal.3d 1130 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 801 times
    Applying a presumption of correctness to judgments; prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown
  4. Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 481 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Company, 33 Cal. 4th 780 (2004), a jury awarded plaintiffs $5 million in punitive damages where evidence of defendant's bad faith included an Allstate agent's false declaration about plaintiffs' furniture (which the agent later recanted at trial), defendant's unsubstantiated accusation that plaintiffs had set fire to their own house, and defendant's dishonest delay tactics which resulted in plaintiffs' eviction from the apartment they were renting.
  5. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 399 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding res judicata barred wife's wrongful death action against tobacco company after husband passed away because wife's prior loss of consortium action (while husband was alive) involving same primary right, including loss of companionship and affection, was dismissed with prejudice
  6. Evangelatos v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 392 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
  7. Le Francois v. Goel

    35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 229 times
    In Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096–1097, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, 112 P.3d 636 (Le Francois), we held the statute “do[es] not limit a court's ability to reconsider its previous interim orders on its own motion,” even while it “prohibit[s] a party from making renewed motions not based on new facts or law....” We construed section 1008 in this manner to avoid serious doubts about its validity under the California Constitution's separation of powers clause.
  8. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court

    20 Cal.3d 578 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 421 times
    Adopting a comparative indemnity theory
  9. DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.

    2 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 266 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 593, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 828 P.2d 140 (1992), the California Supreme Court reviewed a statute which provided that each defendant shall be liable only for the percentage of noneconomic damages which corresponded to that defendant's proportionate share of fault.
  10. Wysinger v. Automobile Club

    157 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 146 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that these two statutory sections "involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts"
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 217 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

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

    Cal. R. 3.1590   Cited 212 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