19 Cited authorities

  1. Central Hudson Gas Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

    447 U.S. 557 (1980)   Cited 1,879 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest
  2. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

    471 U.S. 626 (1985)   Cited 531 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney advertisement promising "if there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients" was potentially misleading because "members of the public are often unaware of the technical meanings of such terms as `fees' and `costs' — terms that, in ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable"
  3. Day v. City of Fontana

    25 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 246 times
    In Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 457, 19 P.3d 1196, we held that a provision of Proposition 213 "precludes uninsured drivers from recovering noneconomic damages in actions against local public entities for nuisance and dangerous condition of property.
  4. Gikas v. Zolin

    6 Cal.4th 841 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 209 times
    Holding the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding
  5. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian

    48 Cal.3d 805 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that a statute that passed the federal test did not violate either the federal or state Constitutions
  6. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

    32 Cal.4th 1029 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 91 times

    No. S102251 April 26, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco County, No. 308274, Ronald Evans Quidachay, Judge. Heller Ehrman White McAuliffe, Paul Alexander, Vanessa Wells and Victoria Collman Brown for Plaintiffs and Appellants. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae, Sonnenschein Nath Rosenthal, Thomas E. McDonald and Sanford Kingsley for Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Deerbrook Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Association and USAA

  7. W. States Petroleum Ass'n v. Bd. of Equalization

    57 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 47 times

    No. S200475. 2013-08-5 WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendant and Appellant. 18 CCR § 474. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, David S. Chaney, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Alicia Fowler, Acting Chief Assistant Attorney General, Paul D. Gifford, Assistant Attorney General, Felix E. Leatherwood, W. Dean Freeman and Brian D. Wesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. LIU See 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008)

  8. 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

    8 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 82 times
    In 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 8 Cal.4th 216 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1106 (1995), the California Supreme Court ruled that both the formulaic method for establishing premium rates and the generic determinations employed in that method were constitutionally permissible.
  9. Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

    32 Cal.3d 347 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 86 times
    Explaining that under the California Vehicle Code, the scope of actionable representations by a car dealer to a consumer is extremely broad, including oral statements
  10. Batt v. City & County of San Francisco

    184 Cal.App.4th 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    In Batt, the court interpreted the definition of "occupancy," which includes not only the use and possession of a hotel room, but "the right to the use or possession of the furnishings or to the services and accommodations accompanying the use and possession of the room."
  11. Section 1011 - Declaration of policy

    15 U.S.C. § 1011   Cited 1,075 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "this case involves insurance law, an area that Congress has expressly left to the states through the McCarran-Ferguson Act."
  12. Section 2695.183 - Standards for Estimates of Replacement Value

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 2695.183   Cited 4 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No licensee shall communicate an estimate of replacement cost to an applicant or insured in connection with an application for or renewal of a homeowners' insurance policy that provides coverage on a replacement cost basis, unless the requirements and standards set forth in subdivisions (a) through (e) below are met: (a) The estimate of replacement cost shall include the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure(s) in its entirety, including at least the following:

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.1125 - Requesting depublication of published opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1125   Cited 17 times

    (a) Request (1) Any person may request the Supreme Court to order that an opinion certified for publication not be published. (2) The request must not be made as part of a petition for review, but by a separate letter to the Supreme Court not exceeding 10 pages. (3) The request must concisely state the person's interest and the reason why the opinion should not be published. (4) The request must be delivered to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the decision is final in the Court of Appeal. (5)

  15. 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)