64 Cited authorities

  1. Ballard v. Uribe

    41 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 749 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting appeal based upon inadequate record
  2. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,028 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules
  3. D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners

    11 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 780 times
    In D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 520 P.2d 10 (Cal. 1974), the state Supreme Court held that the 1962 initiative Act's prohibition of future licensing of osteopaths violated the Equal Protection Clause of both the federal and state constitutions, because the state could not demonstrate a rational relation to a legitimate governmental objective.
  4. Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Company

    51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 170 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Cabral, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 313, 248 P.3d at 1179, the court had no trouble distinguishing Richards and other similar cases: "key-in-the-ignition cases [do not] stand for the proposition that absent special circumstances a collision between a vehicle parked alongside the freeway and one departing out of control from the freeway is unforeseeable.
  5. Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.

    18 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding intrusion upon seclusion claims not viable unless plaintiffs have "objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude in the place, conversation or data source."
  6. Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources

    620 So. 2d 811 (La. 1993)   Cited 219 times
    Finding no heightened duty
  7. Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.

    1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 109 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has a duty for take-home asbestos based on Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 and California case law, which provide that foreseeability is an "important factor" in determining duty
  8. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

    36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 143 times
    Finding that the duty of care regarding premises liability for a business proprietor extends only to foreseeable criminal acts that are likely to occur
  9. Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital

    38 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 216 times
    Criticizing rule of no liability until one accident has occurred because it "discourag[es] landowners from taking adequate measures to protect premises which they know are dangerous" and "contravenes the policy of preventing future harm"
  10. People v. Hernandez

    45 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 109 times
    In Hernandez, unlike here, the officer perceived that the car displayed a facially valid temporary operating permit in the rear window, but decided to pull the car over anyway solely based on his experience that such permits are “very often” invalid, issued for a different vehicle, or attached to a stolen car.
  11. Section 1714

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714   Cited 872 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring all persons to use ordinary care to prevent injuries as the result of their conduct
  12. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,726 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  13. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 43 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

  14. Rule 8.25 - Service, filing, and filing fees

    Cal. R. 8.25   Cited 34 times

    (a)Service (1) Before filing any document, a party must serve one copy of the document on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each unrepresented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute or rule. (2) The party must attach to the document presented for filing a proof of service showing service on each person or entity required to be served under (1), or, if using an electronic filing service provider's automatic electronic document service, the party may