§Why CasetextPricing

McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of Leading Builders of America

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern Cnty.

    201 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    In Baeza, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th 1214, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 557, the trial court ordered homeowners who had sued the builder for construction defects to comply with the builder's contractual procedure and judicial reference provisions.

  3. Burch v. Superior Court

    223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 20 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Permitting homebuyer to sue general contractor for property damage caused by a construction defect

  4. KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court

    223 Cal.App.4th 1471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting statute to require notice to a builder before repairs are made, noting "sequential procedure" set forth in statute

  5. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC

    219 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 12 times   20 Legal Analyses
    In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (Liberty Mutual), Hart purchased a new home built by Brookfield.

  6. Anders v. Superior Court (Meritage Homes of California, Inc.)

    192 Cal.App.4th 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Considering similar report when analyzing legislative history of statute

  7. Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court

    176 Cal.App.4th 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 10 times
    In Standard Pacific, however, only the statutory nonadversarial prelitigation procedures were in issue; there was no contention the builder had elected to use an alternative contractual procedure.

  8. Darling v. Superior Court (Western Pacific Housing, Inc.)

    211 Cal.App.4th 69 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    In Darling, the court rejected a homeowner's contention the document production required of homebuilders under the act (§ 912) could be initiated in the absence of the notice of claims required by section 910. (Darling, at p. 84, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 331.)

  9. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or