§Why CasetextPricing

KABRAN v. SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Appellant’s Petition for Review

54 Cited authorities

  1. In re Zeth S.

    31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,553 times
    Explaining how " ‘[t]he dependency scheme is a "remarkable system of checks and balances" ’ "

  2. Vandenberg v. Superior Court

    21 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 480 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "incorrect" to "distinguish contract from tort liability for purposes of the CGL insurance coverage phrase `legally obligated to pay as damages'"

  3. Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Company

    22 Cal.4th 405 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 173 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lane, an employment discrimination case, a new trial was granted for the defendant employer on the ground of insufficient evidence (on both liability and damages) to support a jury verdict in favor of the two plaintiffs, a supervisor and an African American employee who claimed they were retaliated against and constructively discharged after the supervisor refused to give the employee an unfavorable review.

  4. People v. Lara

    48 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 115 times
    Upholding a trial court's ruling for an extension of a patient's commitment that was made seven months after the commitment was scheduled to terminate

  5. Ehrler v. Ehrler

    126 Cal.App.3d 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 251 times

    Docket No. 19168. November 3, 1981. Appeal from Superior Court of San Joaquin County, No. 110070, William Biddick, Jr., Judge. COUNSEL Fred T. Roseberry III for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Sanguinetti, Willett Seligman and J. James Sanguinetti for Defendant and Respondent. Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos Stromberg, John J. Vlahos and Robert L. Rusky as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. OPINION REGAN, J. Plaintiffs appeal, upon a clerk's transcript only, from a money judgment entered

  6. Caira v. Offner

    126 Cal.App.4th 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 130 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Caira, the appellate court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in excluding an email sent during settlement negotiations where one party "sought admission of the e-mail to prove a claim that was specifically discussed in the e-mail."

  7. People v. Allen

    42 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 118 times
    Rejecting contention that offender did not suffer prejudice because he would have been committed regardless of delay, and stating that the fact that he "was denied his annual review under the MDO Act . . . may be deemed prejudicial"

  8. Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz

    192 Cal.App.4th 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing prior order and dismissing appeal upon "review of a complete record and further analysis of the law"

  9. Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.

    67 Cal.App.4th 1152 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 129 times
    In Sherman, a panel of this court held that the trial court should have granted a new trial and imposed discovery sanctions against the defendant for concealing crucial documents.

  10. Mercer v. Perez

    68 Cal.2d 104 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 283 times
    Holding Supreme Court had no power to revive the trial court's jurisdiction to specify reasons for granting a new trial where trial court failed to comply with § 657, discussing Free with approval

  11. Section 659 - Notice of intention to move for new trial

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 659   Cited 573 times
    Including the requirements regarding timeliness, service and a statement of bases for the motion

  12. Section 660 - Hearing and disposition of motion

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 660   Cited 491 times
    Moving party must be served with written notice of entry of judgment

  13. Section 4 - Code establishes law of state

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 4   Cited 277 times
    Governing an attorney's handling of a client's property

  14. Section 661 - Judge to hear and determine motion; oral argument

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 661   Cited 120 times
    In section 661 there is ‘a positive requirement that the motion for a new trial shall be heard and determined by the judge who presided at the trial’ with the exceptions expressly made in that section and none other.

  15. Section 659a - Time for serving affidavits after filing notice; counter-affidavits

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 659a   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Within 10 days of filing the notice, the moving party shall serve upon all other parties and file any brief and accompanying documents, including affidavits in support of the motion. The other parties shall have 10 days after that service within which to serve upon the moving party and file any opposing briefs and accompanying documents, including counter-affidavits. The moving party shall have five days after that service to file any reply brief and accompanying documents. These deadlines may, for

  16. 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