§Why CasetextPricing

DR. LEEVIL v. WESTLAKE HEALTH CARE CENTER

Appellant’s Petition for Review

31 Cited authorities

  1. Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television

    162 Cal.App.4th 1107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 547 times
    Holding that, in interpreting a contract, a court may provisionally review extrinsic evidence

  2. City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.

    43 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 387 times
    Holding that when "ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury"

  3. Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.

    244 Cal.App.4th 982 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a plaintiff pleaded exceptions to the tender ruling elsewhere in the complaint

  4. Brown v. Boren

    74 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 180 times

    B128000 (Super. Ct. No. GC167363) Filed September 17, 1999 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wendell Mortimer, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. John S. Chang for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gary A. Dordick for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION MASTERSON, J. Plaintiff Mary Lou Brown appeals from the adverse judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8) made by defendants Ira J. Boren and Elizabeth

  5. Schabarum v. California Legislature

    60 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 98 times
    Cautioning against interpretation that raises significant separation of powers issue

  6. Salazars v. Thomass

    236 Cal.App.4th 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 51 times
    Discussing possession

  7. Jones v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co.

    26 Cal.App.4th 1717 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 96 times
    In Jones, the plaintiff leased commercial property from a company, which, under the terms of the lease, promised to obtain rental insurance for damage to the property, payable to the plaintiff that the plaintiff, as lessor, was obligated to pay.

  8. Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre

    167 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unripe developer's declaratory judgment action challenging city resolution that merely directed committee to prepare recommendations for future legislation to amend zoning ordinance

  9. Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. Vars, Pave, McCord & Freedman

    65 Cal.App.4th 1469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 73 times
    Finding parol evidence may not be used to create a contract the parties did not intend to make or to insert language one or both parties now wish had been included].

  10. Garfinkle v. Superior Court

    21 Cal.3d 268 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that, because California's "nonjudicial foreclosure statutes do not . . . compel inclusion of a power of sale in a deed or trust or provide for such a power of sale when one has not been included by the parties," non-judicial foreclosure proceedings are not state actions

  11. Section 1636 - Mutual intention of parties

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1636   Cited 1,812 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing a "contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting , so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful"

  12. Section 1641 - Whole of contract taken together

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1641   Cited 1,219 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Specifying that, when interpreting the language of a contract, the court should give effect to every provision

  13. Section 1559 - Enforcement of contract made for benefit of third party

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1559   Cited 596 times
    Allowing enforcement a contract “made expressly for the benefit of a third person”

  14. Section 1161a - Removal of persons holding over and continuing in possession of manufactured home, mobilehome, floating home or real property after three-day notice

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1161a   Cited 378 times
    Allowing purchaser to remove holdover owner from property but only if “title under the sale has been duly perfected”

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or