25 Cited authorities

  1. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 715 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"
  2. Spinks v. Equity Res. Briarwood

    171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 239 times
    Addressing the purported beneficiary's burden
  3. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 323 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule
  4. Aguilar v. Lerner

    32 Cal.4th 974 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 167 times
    In Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 287, 88 P.3d 24] (Aguilar), as explained at greater length below, we determined that a client who had not chosen MFAA arbitration could not oppose a motion to compel contractual arbitration under the CAA by invoking the MFAA's right to a trial de novo, because in not choosing MFAA arbitration, the client had waived any rights he or she may have had under the MFAA.
  5. California Medical Association v. Aetna U.S.

    94 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 119 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "as a matter of law, a quasi-contract action for unjust enrichment does not lie where, as here, express binding agreements exist and define the parties' rights"
  6. Lucas v. Hamm

    56 Cal.2d 583 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 363 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney could be liable in tort to beneficiaries of negligently drawn will
  7. Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 74 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Apple, the court noted that the Act made no mention of online commercial transactions, and predated the prevalence of such transactions by a decade.
  8. Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. United States, Inc.

    209 Cal.App.4th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that clauses similar to those here did not affect the public interest where the defendant claimed plaintiff failed to properly conduct a laboratory study of the efficacy of defendant's food disinfection equipment as required by their agreement
  9. Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician-patient privilege did not exist where a sperm donor visited sperm bank in order only to sell his sperm and not for diagnosis or treatment of any physical or mental ailment
  10. Expedia v. City of Columbus

    681 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that tax collection obligations imposed on Expedia were constitutional because it had agreed to make the collections pursuant to contracts with the hotels
  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,593 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part