§Why CasetextPricing

RUBENSTEIN v. DOE NO. 1

Appellant’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

  2. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist.

    42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 665 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity"

  3. John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist.

    48 Cal.3d 438 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 244 times
    Holding that individual instances of sexual harassment of students by teachers does not impute liability to the school districts under the doctrine of respondeat superior

  4. Quarry v. Doe I

    53 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 107 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislature may revive time-barred claims if it does so with "express language of revival"

  5. Ginns v. Savage

    61 Cal.2d 520 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 307 times
    In Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 39 Cal.Rptr. 377, 393 P.2d 689, the Real Estate Commissioner (commissioner), after notice and a hearing, revoked the plaintiff's license as a real estate broker.

  6. V.C. v. Los Angeles Uni. School Dist

    139 Cal.App.4th 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 71 times
    Holding as a matter of law that a "reasonable" delay in filing a cause of action after a threat ended is no longer than the period provided by the applicable statute of limitations

  7. K.J. v. Arcadia Unified

    172 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 58 times
    In K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, an appellate court stated that estoppel "arises when a plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence" certain facts.

  8. S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist

    184 Cal.App.4th 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 52 times
    Deeming issue forfeited even though respondent did not argue forfeiture

  9. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

    127 Cal.App.4th 1263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 61 times

    No. B178541 March 29, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. PC034251, Howard J. Schwab, Judge. Law Offices of Michael H. Manning Associates, Michael H. Manning, Marvin L. Benson; Greines, Martin, Stein Richland, Martin Stein and Carolyn Oill for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Bash Polyachenko, Alexander M. Polyachenko and Steven Bash for Real Party in Interest. OPINION SPENCER, P.J. INTRODUCTION Petitioner County of Los Angeles (County) seeks writ review of respondent

  10. Curtis T. v. County of Los Angeles

    123 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 35 times
    In Curtis T., a guardian ad litem brought a claim against Los Angeles County on behalf of an 8-year old child who had been molested at age five. 123 Cal.App.4th at 1412-13.

  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