§Why CasetextPricing

WILLIAMS v. S.C. (MARSHALLS OF CA)

Real Party in Interest, Marshalls of CA, LLC, Answer Brief on the Merits

83 Cited authorities

  1. Hill v. Colorado

    530 U.S. 703 (2000)   Cited 1,288 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding content neutral a ban on "picketing," "demonstrating," "protest, education, or counseling" even though it may require the government "to review the content of the statements made"

  2. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.

    531 U.S. 457 (2001)   Cited 1,094 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Chevron deference is due only to a " reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency"

  3. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,506 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  4. Frisby v. Schultz

    487 U.S. 474 (1988)   Cited 894 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that residential streets are traditional public fora

  5. Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.

    654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,469 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

  6. United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

    510 U.S. 487 (1994)   Cited 667 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”

  7. Denham v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 4,241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the well settled principle that on appeal, "[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown"

  8. Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 706 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

  9. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California

    55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 729 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court properly excluded expert testimony

  10. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank

    55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,145 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nothing in Rule 23 "can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes"

  11. Section 475 - Error, improper ruling, instruction or defect not affecting substantial rights of parties

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 475   Cited 1,354 times
    Appealing party must demonstrate "substantial injury"

  12. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,061 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  13. Section 382 - Party not consenting to joinder as plaintiff made defendant

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382   Cited 916 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth the requirements for class action certification

  14. Section 128.7 - Attorney or unrepresented party to sign pleadings, petitions, notice, etc.; certification; sanctions for violations

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7   Cited 752 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that allegations in the pleading, "to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief...have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery"

  15. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 1   Cited 234 times

    The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. Cal. Const. art. VI § 1

  16. Section 2017.010 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Allowing discovery of relevant non-privileged material

  17. Section 2030.300 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if answer is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection is without merit or too general

  18. Section 11180 - Authority to investigate and prosecute actions

    Cal. Gov. Code § 11180   Cited 64 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Empowering department heads to investigate and prosecute charges that department regulations have been violated

  19. Section 2030.210 - Methods of responding; requirements

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory. (b) In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity

  20. Rule 8.486 - Petitions

    Cal. R. 8.486   Cited 73 times

    (a)Contents of petition (1) If the petition could have been filed first in a lower court, it must explain why the reviewing court should issue the writ as an original matter. (2) If the petition names as respondent a judge, court, board, or other officer acting in a public capacity, it must disclose the name of any real party in interest. (3) If the petition seeks review of trial court proceedings that are also the subject of a pending appeal, the notice "Related Appeal Pending" must appear on the