§Why CasetextPricing

McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of MWI, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company

    28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 821 times
    Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

  2. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 550 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

  3. People v. Barragan

    32 Cal.4th 236 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 594 times
    Holding that the retrial of a strike allegation is permissible when the trier of fact finds the strike allegation true but the appellate court reverses

  4. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

    17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 827 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are threatened with physical harm by a patient

  5. 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

  6. 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"

  7. Slater v. Blackwood

    15 Cal.3d 791 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 352 times
    Holding that changes in law are "not a ground for equity's intervention. So to hold would be to emasculate, if not wipe out, the doctrine of res judicata because the doctrine is most frequently applied to block relitigation based upon contentions that a law has been changed. Our courts have repeatedly refused to treat the self-evident hardship occasioned by a change in the law as a reason to revive dead actions."

  8. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.

    119 Cal.App.3d 757 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 250 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a jury award of punitive damages against Ford for its manufacture of the Pinto, and holding that "punitive damages are recoverable in a nondeliberate or unintentional tort where the defendant's conduct constitutes a conscious disregard of the probability of injury to others"

  9. 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

  10. Verdugo v. Target Corp.

    59 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that a retailer did not owe a common law duty to acquire and make available an AED to a patron

  11. 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