§Why CasetextPricing

ARDON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

38 Cited authorities

  1. Mapp v. Ohio

    367 U.S. 643 (1961)   Cited 8,298 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

  2. Romer v. Evans

    517 U.S. 620 (1996)   Cited 1,258 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding unlawful a state law that precluded local ordinances from protecting homosexuals from discrimination because it "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects"

  3. Elkins v. United States

    364 U.S. 206 (1960)   Cited 2,064 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the imperative of judicial integrity" requires illegally gathered evidence to be suppressed

  4. People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 563 times

    S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief

  5. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 539 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

  6. Costco v. Superior Ct.

    47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 304 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"

  7. People v. Cornett

    53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 170 times
    Holding "'10 years of age or younger' as used in section 288.7 to be another means of saying 'under 11 years of age'"

  8. Roberts v. City of Palmdale

    5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 194 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "under the Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications within the scope of the attorney-client relationship"

  9. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

    42 Cal.4th 807 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding counsel needed to cease document review once it became apparent the document contained attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research and/or theories

  10. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.4th 257 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 122 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the Insurance Code does not create a private right of action and that a plaintiff may not "plead around" that limitation by casting a cause of action based on a violation of another statute

  11. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,117 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  13. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007