§Why CasetextPricing

PARRISH v. LATHAM & WATKINS (To be called and continued to the June 2017 calendar.)

Appellants’ Opening Brief on the Merits

36 Cited authorities

  1. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.

    47 Cal.3d 654 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 1,139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tort damages are not available for breach of an employment contract

  2. Wilson v. Parker, Covert Chidester

    28 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 690 times
    Finding that denial of a motion for nonsuit establishes the plaintiff can substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence to support a favorable verdict

  3. Zamos v. Stroud

    32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 512 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of malicious prosecution includes "continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause"

  4. Crowley v. Katleman

    8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 604 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suit for malicious prosecution lies for bringing an action charging multiple grounds of liability when some but not all of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause"

  5. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion

  6. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies

    46 Cal.3d 287 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 510 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 790.03(h) has no private right of action

  7. Sangster v. Paetkau

    68 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 315 times
    Analyzing the probable cause of a lay person without drawing any distinction, noting "A litigant will lack probable cause for his action either if he relies upon facts which he has no reasonable cause to believe to be true, or if he seeks recovery upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to him"

  8. Samuels v. Mix

    22 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 190 times
    Holding that "defendant must prove the facts necessary to enjoy the benefit of a statute of limitations"

  9. Laird v. Blacker

    2 Cal.4th 606 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislature expressly intended to disallow tolling under any circumstances not enumerated in the statute

  10. Woods v. Young

    53 Cal.3d 315 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 207 times
    Holding statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is one year and 90 days when the plaintiff sends the physician-defendant a 90-day notice of intent to sue