§Why CasetextPricing

LOPEZ v. SONY ELECTRONICS

Appellant’s Petition for Review

38 Cited authorities

  1. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.

    531 U.S. 457 (2001)   Cited 1,090 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Chevron deference is due only to a " reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency"

  2. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,294 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"

  3. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 996 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

  4. People v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty. (Zamudio)

    23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 521 times
    Recognizing a new theory may be presented for the first time on appeal if "it raised only a question of law and can be decided based on undisputed facts"

  5. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”

  6. People v. Arias

    45 Cal.4th 169 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 166 times
    Recognizing “the proviso ‘including, but not limited to’ ‘connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully capable of enlargement’ ”

  7. Imperial Merchant Ser. v. Hunt

    47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 148 times
    Distinguishing cases where intent to create exclusive remedy rested only on an assumption to that effect, or an inference drawn from rules of statutory construction

  8. McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc.

    73 Cal.App.4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 182 times
    Applying the standard to a class action

  9. O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.

    4 Ohio St. 3d 84 (Ohio 1983)   Cited 222 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that generally a cause of action exists and the statute of limitations begins to run from the time the wrongful act was committed

  10. Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.

    121 Cal.App.4th 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 91 times
    In Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 479 (Whaley),the court held that section 1281.2, subdivision (c) applied to employees who brought an action against their former employer and its vice-president, because those defendants were already in litigation with other former employees that involved related transactions and raised common issues of law and fact.

  11. Section 7401 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 7401   Cited 1,374 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “air pollution prevention (that is, the reduction or elimination, through any measures, of the amount of pollutants produced or created at the source) and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments”

  12. Section 8

    Cal. Const. art. IV § 8   Cited 590 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing effective dates of statutes

  13. Section 340.4 - Injuries suffered by minor before or in course of birth

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.4   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    An action by or on behalf of a minor for personal injuries sustained before or in the course of his or her birth must be commenced within six years after the date of birth, and the time the minor is under any disability mentioned in Section 352 shall not be excluded in computing the time limited for the commencement of the action. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.4 Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 163, Sec. 16. Effective January 1, 1993. Operative January 1, 1994, by Sec. 161 of Ch. 163.

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  15. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)