§Why CasetextPricing

VASILENKO v. GRACE FAMILY CHURCH

Appellants’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

63 Cited authorities

  1. Ballard v. Uribe

    41 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 1,095 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting new trial motion and additur request because failure to include transcript or settled statement precluded review to determine whether it was "reasonably probable" juror misconduct or instructional error affected damage award

  2. D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners

    11 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 1,063 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.

  3. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,246 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules

  4. Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.

    1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 241 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employers and property owners owe members of a worker's household a duty to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos

  5. Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

    51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 244 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claimed exception to duty of care for stopping alongside a freeway

  6. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

    36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 218 times
    Finding restaurants, bars, and shopping centers have affirmative duty to reasonably secure premises against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties

  7. Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.

    18 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 264 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."

  8. Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources

    620 So. 2d 811 (La. 1993)   Cited 235 times
    In Mundy v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 620 So.2d 811 (La. 1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court declared that the general duty of the owner of a facility is reasonable care for the safety of persons on his premises and not exposing such persons to an unreasonable risk of injury. The majority quotes Mundy which adopted the Restatement of Torts language as to when a proprietor may be under a duty to take precautions against criminal conduct, but then states that there was "no evidence of a single prior criminal act at or in the vicinity of the station."

  9. People v. Hernandez

    45 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 140 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.

  10. Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol

    26 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer who stopped a car by the median of a highway rather on the safer shoulder had a reasonable duty of care to protect the occupant against risk from being hit by other cars

  11. Section 1714 - Responsibility injury occasioned by want of ordinary care or skill in management of property or person; firearms and ammunition not exempted

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714   Cited 1,302 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Requiring all persons to use ordinary care to prevent injuries as the result of their conduct

  12. 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

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

    Cal. R. 8.25   Cited 58 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