Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) Cited 597 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding "plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's [or decedent's] exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer"
Rowland v. Christian
69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) Cited 1,246 times 20 Legal AnalysesHolding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.
3 Cal.4th 370 (Cal. 1992) Cited 544 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that an accountant is liable for negligent misrepresentation to a third party only if he knowingly supplies the information for the benefit of the third party, and the information is relied on by the third party in a transaction previously identified to the accountant, or a substantially similar transaction
Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) Cited 274 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that there was no legal duty because the plaintiff did not have a “special relationship” with the premises owner
Thing v. La Chusa
48 Cal.3d 644 (Cal. 1989) Cited 473 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, said plaintiff: is closely related to the injury victim; is present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and as a result suffers serious emotional distress"
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) Cited 244 times 4 Legal AnalysesRejecting claimed exception to duty of care for stopping alongside a freeway
Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc.
2012 IL 110662 (Ill. 2012) Cited 212 times 3 Legal AnalysesReversing dismissal of complaint and permitting leave to amend to state facts regarding negligent failure to warn of risks of household exposure to asbestos transported home from railroad worker's jobsite
O'Neil v. Crane Co.
53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) Cited 201 times 27 Legal AnalysesHolding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products
Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc.
118 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 244 timesImposing a duty is "'an expression of policy considerations leading to the legal conclusion that a plaintiff is entitled to a defendant's protection.'"
Martin v. Cincinnati Gas
561 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2009) Cited 144 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that defendant's liability must be evaluated in the context of other exposures
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
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)