23 Cited authorities

  1. People ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Company

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 428 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

  2. People v. Cornett

    53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 136 times
    In People v. Cornett (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1261, our Supreme Court recently held that the term "ten years of age or younger" as used in section 288.7, subdivision (b) covers children until they reach their 11th birthday.
  3. Roberts v. City of Palmdale

    5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 853 P.2d 496 (Cal. 1993), the California Supreme Court held that "a concerted plan to engage in collective deliberation on public business through a series of... telephone calls passing from one member of the governing body to the next would violate the open meeting requirement."
  4. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.4th 257 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 95 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
  5. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

    42 Cal.4th 807 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 58 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
  6. Mitchell v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 112 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering the public policy ramifications of disclosure in other cases
  7. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.

    70 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 73 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that counsel "should have not been sanctioned for engaging in conduct condemned by an ABA formal opinion, but which has not been condemned by any decision, statute, or Rule of Professional Conduct applicable in this state" and reversing sanctions order
  8. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

    199 Cal.App.3d 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that a court is "not reviewing the merits of a fraud cause of action" but is instead "reviewing the merits of a discovery order to determine if [a party] will have access to communications between [the opposing party] and its attorneys to aid [the party] in proving its causes of action."
  9. Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

    52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 23 times
    Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA
  10. Los Angeles v. Superior Court

    82 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an in camera inspection of local agency records was required in connection with a request for access pursuant to the California Public Records Act to determine whether they were protected by the enactment's work product exemption, where the county claimed that the documents had been prepared in anticipation of litigation
  11. Section 2018.020

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.020   Cited 15 times

    It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. (b) Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.020 Added by Stats 2004 ch 182 (AB 3081),s 23, eff. 7/1/2005.

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)