48 Cited authorities

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,848 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
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"
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber
61 Cal.4th 813 (Cal. 2015) Cited 566 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "issue preclusion cannot be used to prohibit [a party] from seeking redress from a different obligor just because it has prevailed against a different party in the first suit"
Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company
28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) Cited 822 times
Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages
Lucido v. Superior Court (People)
51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) Cited 1,147 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of collateral estoppel include an identity of issues, the issue was actually litigated, and the issue was necessarily decided
Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010) Cited 551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"
Vandenberg v. Superior Court
21 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 1999) Cited 480 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is "incorrect" to "distinguish contract from tort liability for purposes of the CGL insurance coverage phrase `legally obligated to pay as damages'"
Founding Members v. Newport Beach
109 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 424 times
Holding that extrinsic evidence could be used to help determine the meaning of an integrated contract, provided that the extrinsic evidence "is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible."
Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.
171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 332 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc.
59 Cal.4th 277 (Cal. 2014) Cited 228 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that insurers owe a duty to defend against a claim that is potentially covered, even if the claim is ultimately not covered under the policy
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
Rule 8.70 - Application, construction, and definitions
Cal. R. 8.70
(a) Application Notwithstanding any other rules to the contrary, the rules in this article govern filing and service by electronic means in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. (Subd (a) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2017; adopted as subd (b); previously amended effective January 1, 2012.) (b) Construction The rules in this article must be construed to authorize and permit filing and service by electronic means to the extent feasible. (Subd (b) relettered effective January 1

SAMARA v. MATAR

48 Cited authorities

Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

Holding that "issue preclusion cannot be used to prohibit [a party] from seeking redress from a different obligor just because it has prevailed against a different party in the first suit"

Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

Holding that the elements of collateral estoppel include an identity of issues, the issue was actually litigated, and the issue was necessarily decided

Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

Holding that it is "incorrect" to "distinguish contract from tort liability for purposes of the CGL insurance coverage phrase `legally obligated to pay as damages'"

Holding that extrinsic evidence could be used to help determine the meaning of an integrated contract, provided that the extrinsic evidence "is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible."

Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

Holding that insurers owe a duty to defend against a claim that is potentially covered, even if the claim is ultimately not covered under the policy