§Why CasetextPricing

RUBENSTEIN v. DOE NO. 1

Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

35 Cited authorities

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,921 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  2. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

    55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 668 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."

  3. 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"

  4. City of Stockton v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 648 times
    Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

  5. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 754 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

  6. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion

  7. Kachlon v. Markowitz

    168 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 377 times
    Holding that California Civil Code "section 2924 deems the statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, to be privileged communications under the qualified common-interest privilege of section 47, subdivision (c)."

  8. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 257 times
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."

  9. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  10. Western Security Bank v. Superior Court

    15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 287 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Legislature's retroactive intent was plain because the bill stated that it was intended to abrogate a specific court of appeal holding and " ‘confirm the expectation of the parties’ " that an earlier interpretation of applicable law would apply