§Why CasetextPricing

RAMOS v. BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES

Respondents, P-G Industries, Inc., and The Pryor-Giggey Company, Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,230 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714

  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. Beale v. Hardy

    769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1985)   Cited 1,771 times
    Holding that a party "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another"

  4. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.

    4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 501 times
    Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

  5. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.

    43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 195 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense applicable to both types of claims

  6. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    53 Cal.3d 987 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 258 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "knowledge, actual or constructive, is a requisite for strict liability for failure to warn."

  7. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 102 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the argument that the component parts doctrine “applies only ‘to manufacturers of fungible, multi-use components that can be used for myriad purposes' ”

  8. Casterson v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 98 times
    In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.

  9. Ellenberger v. Espinosa

    30 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 111 times

    Docket No. E011662. November 18, 1994. Appeal from Superior Court of Riverside County, No. 215073, Robert K. Garst, Judge. COUNSEL Andrew I. Roth for Plaintiff and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Robert H. Francis and Joel A. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION HOLLENHORST, J. Plaintiff, James Dennis Ellenberger, D.D.S., appeals from a judgment entered against him and in favor of defendant Jennie Espinosa, (hereinafter defendant) based on the trial

  10. B P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga

    185 Cal.App.3d 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 98 times

    Docket No. H000410. September 22, 1986. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 532163, Peter G. Stone, Judge. COUNSEL Burnett, Burnett Allen, Douglas B. Allen and Bruce F. Allen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney, and Steven G. Baird, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION AGLIANO, P.J. — I Plaintiff B P Development Corporation, doing business as B P Inc., appeals from an order dismissing the action after a general and special demurrer

  11. 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

  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)