§Why CasetextPricing

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)

Real Parties in Interest, ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven, Request for Judicial Notice

8 Cited authorities

  1. McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc.

    73 Cal.App.4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 182 times
    Applying the standard to a class action

  2. Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

    97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 166 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"

  3. Int'l Fed'n of Prof'l & Tech. Eng'rs v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 104 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a "strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money"

  4. Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd.

    170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Cal. 2000)   Cited 41 times
    Finding no authority for judicial notice of pleadings in an unrelated case

  5. Magnolia Square Homeowners Assn. v. Safeco Ins. Co.

    221 Cal.App.3d 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the court could take judicial notice of a party’s complaint in an earlier action involving the same subject matter for the purpose of proving the party’s notice and knowledge

  6. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.

    107 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no likelihood of confusion and granting summary judgment because the use of Princess Diana's name and likeness on products did not implicate the source-identification purpose of trademark protection under Section 43

  7. County of San Diego v. Sierra

    217 Cal.App.3d 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    In Sierra we held a father's support of his parents and two siblings was not a hardship deduction within the meaning of former Civil Code section 4725 We noted "`[s]ection 4725 allows a deduction for extreme financial hardship when it is due to "justifiable expenses resulting from the circumstances enumerated in this section... [,] the plain language of section 4725 limits the type of expenses that may be deducted as hardship expenses to those specifically enumerated within its provisions.

  8. Section 459 - Duties of reviewing court

    Cal. Evid. Code § 459   Cited 4,180 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing court must notice matter noticed by trial court