23 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 2,850 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
  2. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 711 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
  3. Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

    228 Cal.App.4th 941 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 290 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that loan servicer owed a duty of care
  4. Biakanja v. Irving

    49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958)   Cited 746 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decedent's intended beneficiary had a special relationship with the notary public who had prepared a defective will
  5. Gentry v. Ebay, Inc.

    99 Cal.App.4th 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 149 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that website is an interactive computer service
  6. Ochs v. PacifiCare of California

    115 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 94 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding such a cause of action exists
  7. Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Emergency Med

    45 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 56 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Looking to the Knox–Keene Act as a whole to conclude that one of its provisions, Health & Saf.Code, § 1379, applied to a situation that did not exist at the time of its enactment
  8. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group v. Pacificare of California

    111 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 57 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no negligence cause of action
  9. Frisk v. Superior Court of Orange County

    200 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 41 times
    Following similar procedure in denying petition for writ of mandate seeking review of denial of peremptory challenge to judge
  10. Bell v. Blue Cross of California

    131 Cal.App.4th 211 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 51 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a doctor's implied in-law claim to proceed against a health care plan
  11. Section 1395dd - Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor

    42 U.S.C. § 1395dd   Cited 1,282 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Providing for civil penalties of up to $50,000 for a physician who "signs a certification under subsection (c) ... if the physician knew or should have known that the benefits did not outweigh the risks"
  12. Section 230 - Repealed

    42 U.S.C. § 230   Cited 16 times

    42 U.S.C. § 230 Apr. 27, 1956, ch. 211, §5(e), 70 Stat. 117 Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §706, formerly title VI, §606, 58 Stat. 713; renumbered title VII, §706, Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 958, §5, 60 Stat. 1049; amended Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, §9(a), 62 Stat. 47; Oct. 12, 1949, ch. 681, title V, §521(g), 63 Stat. 835, provided for computation of retired pay. See section 212 of this title.

  13. Section 1300.71.4 - Emergency Medical Condition and Post-Stabilization Responsibilities for Medically Necessary Health Care Services

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.71.4   Cited 2 times

    The following rules set forth emergency medical condition and post-stabilization responsibilities for medically necessary health care services after stabilization of an emergency medical condition and until an enrollee can be discharged or transferred. These rules do not apply to a specialized health care service plan contract that does not provide for medically necessary health care services following stabilization of an emergency condition. (a) Prior to stabilization of an enrollee's emergency

  14. Rule 8.29 - Service on nonparty public officer or agency

    Cal. R. 8.29   Cited 6 times

    (a)Proof of service When a statute or this rule requires a party to serve any document on a nonparty public officer or agency, the party must file proof of such service with the document unless a statute permits service after the document is filed, in which case the proof of service must be filed immediately after the document is served on the public officer or agency. (Subd (a) relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b).) (b)Identification on cover When a statute or this rule requires