§Why CasetextPricing

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (ROSEN)

Real Party in Interest, Katherine Rosen, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,838 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,213 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

  3. Trope v. Katz

    11 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 500 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Determining that under section 1021, opposing parties may enter into an "agreement, express or implied" allocating attorney's fees

  4. Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.

    15 Cal.4th 456 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 227 times
    Holding that the social utility of defendant's conduct overrode the foreseeability of harm

  5. E.L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach

    21 Cal.3d 497 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 189 times
    Allowing a party to seek indemnification from the governmental entity, the Court held that the party's "injury" under California Government Code §§ 810.8 and 835, was the payment of a monetary judgment.

  6. In re Marriage of Oddino

    16 Cal.4th 67 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that "Congress extended concurrent state jurisdiction to any action by a participant or beneficiary to obtain or clarify benefits under the terms of a [QDRO] plan"

  7. Crow v. State of California

    222 Cal.App.3d 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the school had no legal duty to protect a college student from an on-campus assault by another student because the school "could 'not have prevented this incident from taking place except possibly by posting guards in each dorm room on a 24-hour, 365-day per year basis.' "

  8. Franklin v. Monadnock Co.

    151 Cal.App.4th 252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding public policy, when read alongside California Civil Procedure Code section 527.8, requiring employers to maintain safe and secure workplace

  9. Ochoa v. California State University

    72 Cal.App.4th 1300 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding injury from voluntary participation in intramural match subject to § 831.7 immunity

  10. Ewing v. Goldstein

    120 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times

    No. B163112 July 16, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC267552, Frances Rothschild, J. Stark, Rasak Clarke and Edmund Willcox Clarke, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Callahan, McCune Willis and Christopher J. Zopatti for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION BOLAND, J. SUMMARY The parents of a victim killed by a therapist's patient sued the therapist for wrongful death based on the therapist's failure to warn the victim after the therapist received a communication that

  11. Section 1092 - Institutional and financial assistance information for students

    20 U.S.C. § 1092   Cited 107 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring funding recipients to collect statistics on crimes motivated by the victim's "gender, ... sexual orientation"