19 Cited authorities

  1. Pierce v. Underwood

    487 U.S. 552 (1988)   Cited 7,532 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when Congress reenacts a statute without changing its language, and when there is no indication that “Congress thought it was doing anything ... except reenacting and making permanent” the earlier legislation, a court should not give weight to legislative history pertaining to the reenactment
  2. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 789 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"
  3. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 471 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
  4. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions Inc.

    38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting ABA approach of limited "ethical screening" of government attorneys from matters related to former private practice, and disqualifying entire City Attorney's office from prosecuting department head's former client
  5. In re Charlisse C

    45 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 127 times
    Moving party challenged concurrent representation
  6. State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court (Center for Investigative Reporting)

    60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that courts are not authorized to "rewrite statutes"
  7. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

    42 Cal.4th 807 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 70 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
  8. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.

    70 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 89 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
  9. Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court

    115 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In OXY, the court resolved the issue by requiring that the documents be submitted for in camera review to "permit the court to determine whether the disclosures were reasonably necessary to accomplish the lawyer's role in the consultation."
  10. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

    199 Cal.App.3d 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 100 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."
  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 7 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 and the rules in this chapter. (Subd (a) amended effective July 1, 2013; previously amended effective January 1, 2007, January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011.) (b)Electronic service by express consent (1) A party or other person indicates that the party or other person agrees to accept