§Why CasetextPricing

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON v. J-M MANUFACTURING

Respondent’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,668 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

  2. People v. Carpenter

    15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,088 times
    Holding that a defendant could not raise an equal protection challenge for the first time on appeal

  3. People v. Blackburn

    61 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 220 times
    In Blackburn, this court classified as reversible per se a failure to obtain any personal jury waiver at all from a defendant in a civil commitment proceeding.

  4. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  5. Fassberg Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles

    152 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 222 times
    Holding that the plain meaning of the statute only awarded civil penalties for claims, not statements

  6. People v. Alfaro

    41 Cal.4th 1277 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 221 times
    Upholding Pen.Code, § 1018's counsel-consent requirement for guilty pleas in capital cases

  7. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions Inc.

    38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Pen. Code, § 1424 inapplicable to civil action filed by city attorney

  8. Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC

    350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that disqualification is a "drastic" measure that should be used only when "absolutely necessary"

  9. Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney v. 100 Oak St.

    35 Cal.3d 312 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 171 times
    Adopting the majority rule as set forth in Prima Paint

  10. American Software, Inc. v. Ali

    46 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 98 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a contract clause was not substantively unconscionable which terminated a salesperson's right to commissions thirty days post-termination where the sales representative had an "ongoing responsibilities to `service' the account once the sale is made" and the contract involved risks on both sides.

  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