§Why CasetextPricing

SCHER v. BURKE

Appellants, Richard Erickson, Wendie Malick, Richard Schroder, and Andrea Schroder, Answer Brief on the Merits

36 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 4,495 times
    Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant

  2. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,759 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  3. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,079 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  4. People v. Soto

    51 Cal.4th 229 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 361 times
    Holding the victim's consent is not a defense to the crime of lewd acts on a child under age 14 under section 288 and has no effect when the lewd acts are committed by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear

  5. Roddenberry v. Roddenberry

    44 Cal.App.4th 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 465 times
    Finding the defendant "concealed the true facts in the hope that the first Mrs. Roddenberry would accept . . . payments and never discover she was receiving only a third."

  6. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partn.

    42 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 292 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"

  7. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.

    53 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 198 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding attorneys' fees “not authorized” for meal or rest period claims

  8. Pereira v. County of Santa Clara

    113 Cal.App.4th 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 163 times
    Holding that a principal cannot be held liable for an actual agent who acts beyond the scope of his actual or ostensible authority

  9. People v. Guzman

    35 Cal.4th 577 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Inserting additional language into a statute violates the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes

  10. Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

    45 Cal.4th 1151 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 129 times
    Reviewing the historical forms of indemnity under California law

  11. Section 1009 - Irrevocable offer of dedication

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1009   Cited 40 times
    Limiting implied dedications of public easements to those established prior to March 4, 1972

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,270 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

  13. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 122 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide