§Why CasetextPricing

ARDON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Appellant’s Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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'"

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.

    70 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 105 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

  7. Mitchell v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that privilege may be waived in " ' one situation in which a client has placed in issue the decisions, conclusions, and mental state of the attorney who will be called as a witness to prove such matters' "

  8. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

    199 Cal.App.3d 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 106 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 28 times
    Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA

  10. Melendrez v. Superior Court of Cal.

    215 Cal.App.4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 16 times
    Holding de facto assignee of defunct corporation had authority to waive privilege, but noting “[i]f there is no ... successor entity, and the corporation no longer exists, we presume the privilege would no longer exist”

  11. Section 2018.020 - Policy of state

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2018.020   Cited 27 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 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

  13. 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)