§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

24 Cited authorities

  1. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 828 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. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 518 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule

  3. Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments

    171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 303 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing fee award where summary judgment is reversed

  4. In re Aguilar

    32 Cal.4th 974 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 233 times
    Rejecting application of judicial estoppel where the plaintiff's "dual positions" were "not 'totally inconsistent' "

  5. California Medical Assn. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc.

    94 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "action for unjust enrichment does not lie where . . . express binding agreements exist and define the parties' rights"; characterizing claim based on unjust enrichment as "quasi-contract" claim

  6. Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc.

    209 Cal.App.4th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's factual allegations "'are conclusive concessions of the truth of a matter,'" and that this principle "encompasses allegations that a contract incorporates specified terms or clauses"

  7. Lucas v. Hamm

    56 Cal.2d 583 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 417 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney could be liable in tort to beneficiaries of negligently drawn will

  8. Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 91 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.

  9. Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 82 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. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Central Pacific Bank

    207 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 41 times
    Providing fraud by omission elements