§Why CasetextPricing

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

Real Party in Interest, Katherine Rosen, Supplemental Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,848 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. People v. Sanchez

    63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 1,450 times
    Holding that case-specific out-of-court statements offered by an expert and not otherwise admissible are necessarily offered for their truth, in violation of the Confrontation Clause

  3. Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.

    1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 241 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employers and property owners owe members of a worker's household a duty to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos

  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. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 203 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  6. Johnson v. State

    69 Cal.2d 782 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 475 times
    Holding that, while a decision to parole is a basic policy decision, a parole officer’s subsequent decision as to what warnings to give to foster parents was "a determination at the lowest, ministerial rung of official action" and not entitled to immunity

  7. Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC

    2 Cal.5th 536 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 113 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Perry, the party opposing summary judgment could have sought statutory relief from its failure to disclose, but absent the granting of such relief the experts’ testimony was barred under the express statutory language.

  8. Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol

    26 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer who stopped a car by the median of a highway rather on the safer shoulder had a reasonable duty of care to protect the occupant against risk from being hit by other cars

  9. Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church

    3 Cal.5th 1077 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding on summary judgment that the Rowland factors supported an exception to the duty ofcare, after repeatedly rejecting the plaintiff's policy arguments and without referring to counterarguments from the defendant

  10. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist

    55 Cal.2d 211 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 399 times
    Striking down the general rule of state sovereign immunity

  11. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 119 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