§Why CasetextPricing

SCHER v. BURKE

Appellants, Jaime Scher and Jane McAllister, Petition for Review

52 Cited authorities

  1. In re Marriage of Arceneaux

    51 Cal.3d 1130 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,383 times
    Addressing omissions in a statement of decision

  2. In re Savannah M.

    131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 797 times
    Granting mother's motion to strike reference to post-appeal change in minors' placement

  3. Fladeboe v. America Isuzu Motors Inc.

    150 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 671 times
    Holding party lacks standing to seek declaratory relief under a contract to which plaintiff is not a party or third party beneficiary

  4. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partn.

    42 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 286 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may be liable for retaliation under FEHA, "but nonemployer individual may not be held personally liable for their role in that retaliation"

  5. Burden v. Snowden

    2 Cal.4th 556 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 346 times

    Docket No. S021885. April 30, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 590772, William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Filarsky Watt, Steve A. Filarsky, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Amy D. Hogue and Kevin M. Fong for Defendants and Appellants. Mayer Reeves, Thomas M. Reeves, Irving Berger, Martin J. Mayer, Whitmore, Johnson Bolanos, Richard S. Whitmore, Craig W. Patenaude and Helene L. Leichter as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. John K. York

  6. Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba

    100 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 166 times
    Concluding that members of the public were improperly arrested for trespass because the route was a public road based on historic state interpretation of dedication

  7. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States

    440 U.S. 668 (1979)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a railroad act should "receive such a construction as will carry out the intent of Congress" which can be determined by "the condition of the country when the acts were passed, as well as to the purpose declared on their face"

  8. City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (Farquhar)

    13 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 170 times
    Finding that unless the interpretation of a written instrument turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence, de novo review is proper

  9. Adams v. City of Fremont

    68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 154 times
    Finding the officer's "decisions as to how to deploy his officers at the scene" and "the efforts made in an attempt to defuse the situation as safely as possible" cannot subject the officers to liability

  10. Klein v. United States of America

    50 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 95 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Certifying a question to the California Supreme Court because of doubts over whether the relevant intermediate court of appeals decision was correct

  11. Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication

    Cal. R. 8.1110   Cited 2,326 times

    (a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For

  12. Rule 8.1100 - Authority

    Cal. R. 8.1100   Cited 417 times

    The rules governing the publication of appellate opinions are adopted by the Supreme Court under section 14 of article VI of the California Constitution and published in the California Rules of Court at the direction of the Judicial Council. Cal. R. Ct. 8.1100 Rule 8.1100 adopted effective 1/1/2007.

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)