23 Cited authorities

Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) Cited 668 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."
Martinez v. Combs
49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) Cited 479 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"
Lantzy v. Centex Homes
31 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 2003) Cited 504 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that California's equitable tolling doctrine operates to toll a statute of limitations for a claim asserted by a continuously confined civil detainee who has pursued his claim in good faith
Reynolds v. Bement
36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005) Cited 273 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise
AAS v. SUPERIOR COURT
24 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 2000) Cited 277 times 18 Legal Analyses
Finding diminished value of residences containing hazardous defects not compensable
Jimenez v. Superior Court
29 Cal.4th 473 (Cal. 2002) Cited 221 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product . . . causes to other portions of a larger product . . . into which the former has been incorporated"
Seely v. White Motor Co.
63 Cal.2d 9 (Cal. 1965) Cited 605 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a manufacturer of a defective product is not subject to strict liability where the damages are purely economic
In re J. W.
29 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2002) Cited 151 times
Referring to the "principle, commonly known under the Latin name of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ... that the expression of one thing in a statute ordinarily implies the exclusion of other things"
Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.
168 Cal.App.4th 1194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 84 times 2 Legal Analyses
Construing RORA according to its plain meaning
San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. W.R. Grace
37 Cal.App.4th 1318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 115 times
Finding that presence of asbestos products in buildings did not satisfy damage element of negligence cause of action when products had not contaminated buildings by releasing friable asbestos

McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

Holding that California's equitable tolling doctrine operates to toll a statute of limitations for a claim asserted by a continuously confined civil detainee who has pursued his claim in good faith

Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise

Finding diminished value of residences containing hazardous defects not compensable

Holding "the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product . . . causes to other portions of a larger product . . . into which the former has been incorporated"

Holding that a manufacturer of a defective product is not subject to strict liability where the damages are purely economic

Referring to the "principle, commonly known under the Latin name of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ... that the expression of one thing in a statute ordinarily implies the exclusion of other things"

Construing RORA according to its plain meaning

Finding that presence of asbestos products in buildings did not satisfy damage element of negligence cause of action when products had not contaminated buildings by releasing friable asbestos