40 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 3,009 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Matsushita standard and making it applicable to claims under the Cartwright Act
  2. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 827 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714
  3. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,024 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules
  4. Teselle v. McLoughlin

    173 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 275 times
    Stating that a right to an accounting can exist solely from possession by the defendant of money which, because of the parties' relationship, the defendant is obliged to surrender
  5. Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Company

    51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 168 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.
  6. Viner v. Sweet

    30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 194 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a plaintiff must show "but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result"
  7. 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"
  8. Carson v. Facilities Development Co.

    36 Cal.3d 830 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 189 times
    In Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 842-843 (Carson), the court inferred the obviousness of the alleged dangerous condition of public property from the established circumstances.
  9. Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin

    42 Cal.4th 1121 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1131, the court stated: " 'Where, as here, "the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.
  10. Baptist v. Robinson

    143 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. H029233. September 21, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 1-04-CV-013045, Kevin E. McKenney, Judge. Law Office of Paul B. Kemp and Paul B. Kemp for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day Lindstrom, Robert M. Gerhardt and Benjamin A. Emmert for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Cheryl L. Ferguson; Glaspy Glaspy and Thomas P. Glaspy for Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J. Just before dawn

  11. Section 1714

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714   Cited 859 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring all persons to use ordinary care to prevent injuries as the result of their conduct
  12. Section 830

    Cal. Gov. Code § 830   Cited 209 times
    Providing that a public entity may be liable for dangerous conditions on its premises even if its agents are immune from suit
  13. Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.278   Cited 2,826 times

    (a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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 13 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)