26 Cited authorities

  1. City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare

    41 Cal.4th 859 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 432 times
    In City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, the California Supreme Court addressed the application of the definition of injury in section 810.8 to an alleged claim that a county had misallocated property tax revenue.
  2. Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

    223 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of UCL cause of action against attorney where attorney's violation of Rule 3-310 was alleged as a fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful act, but plaintiff failed to allege causation of damage from that violation
  3. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    137 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 255 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lead paint manufacturers could incur nuisance liability for their "intentional promotion of the use of lead paint on the interiors of buildings with knowledge of the public health hazard that this would create," but not for their "mere manufacture and distribution of lead paint or their failure to warn of its hazards"
  4. Giraldo v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

    168 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 210 times
    Holding jailers have a duty of care to protect prisoners from foreseeable harm inflicted by third parties
  5. Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.

    7 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 454 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint knowingly filed in an inconvenient venue is actionable process
  6. Welco Elecs., Inc. v. Mora

    223 Cal.App.4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 129 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Determining that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded conversion where defendant misappropriated plaintiff's credit card and wrongfully transferred money from the plaintiff's available credit line
  7. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand

    6 Cal.3d 176 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 414 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in an action for professional malpractice against an attorney, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows, or should know, all material facts essential to show the elements of that cause of action
  8. Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (Pacific Lumber Co.)

    7 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "the [California Board of Forestry] has the ultimate power of approval over a [THP]"
  9. Schubert v. Reynolds

    95 Cal.App.4th 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 98 times
    In Schubert, a daughter, acting for her father pursuant to a durable power of attorney, created an inter vivos trust the day before he died that granted the daughter a life estate in his property, with the remainder of her father's estate to be distributed to his grandchildren after the daughter's death, effectively bypassing the father's three other children.
  10. Schultz v. Harney

    27 Cal.App.4th 1611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that litigation of attorney's fee issue during plaintiff's minority did not affect Section 352 tolling as to other claims
  11. Section 340.6 - Attorney's wrongful act or omission in performance of professional services

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6   Cited 592 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that limitations period on plaintiff's legal malpractice action did not begin until plaintiff had suffered "appreciable harm" and "mere breach of . . . duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm— not yet realized—does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence"
  12. 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