11 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,059 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
  2. Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.

    40 Cal.3d 780 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 235 times
    Holding that because entitlement to the immunity requires a showing that the employee consciously exercised discretion by balancing potential risks and advantages, "[s]uch a showing was not and could not have been made by [the defendant] at the demurrer stage"
  3. Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court

    32 Cal.4th 771 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2004), the California Supreme Court confronted the sad story of Juan Inclan, an "elder," during his eight-week stay at a "skilled nursing facility."
  4. Banis Restaurant Design, Inc. v. Serrano

    134 Cal.App.4th 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 83 times
    Suggesting that severability is inappropriate
  5. Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc.

    59 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that the belief in the agent's authority must be generated by some act or neglect of the principal sought to be charged"
  6. County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Bd.

    143 Cal.App.4th 985 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 619], Los Angeles County and the cities involved in this case, plus BILDF, sued the defendants challenging the adoption of the 2001 MS4 Permit.
  7. Lindsay-Field v. Friendly

    36 Cal.App.4th 1728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 21 times

    Docket No. B070823. July 24, 1995. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C716161, Victor E. Chavez, Judge. COUNSEL Langberg, Leslie Gabriel, Barry B. Langberg, Joseph M. Gabriel, Dwayne Watts, James M. Duenow and Kathlene Bonnigson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Robert Forgnone, Shauna Weeks, Richard G. Flanagan, Nolan B. Henderson and Vanessa Comerford for Defendants and Appellants. OPINION VOGEL (C.S.), J. — INTRODUCTION Defendants are members of the Naevus

  8. Shields v. County of San Diego

    155 Cal.App.3d 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 22 times

    Docket No. 28289. May 1, 1984. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 404606, J. Perry Langford, Judge. COUNSEL Sherman Nordstrom, Eric Logue, Al Schallau, John M. Sutherland and Jean Corey for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stockdale, Peckham, Estes Werner, Louis D. Estes, Rhoades, Hollywood Neil and Bruce E. Sulzner for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION WORK, J. James Shields appeals an order for summary judgment for his employer, Sun Harbor Industries and its parent corporation, Westgate

  9. Section 2298 - Types of agency

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2298   Cited 102 times

    An agency is either actual or ostensible. Ca. Civ. Code § 2298 Enacted 1872.

  10. Rule 2.253 - Permissive electronic filing, mandatory electronic filing, and electronic filing by court order

    Cal. R. 2.253   Cited 7 times

    (a)Permissive electronic filing by local rule A court may permit parties by local rule to file documents electronically in any types of cases subject to the conditions in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; adopted effective July 1, 2013; previously amended effective January 1, 2018.) (b)Mandatory electronic filing by local rule A court may require parties by local rule to electronically file

  11. Rule 2.255 - Contracts with and responsibilities of electronic filing service providers and electronic filing managers

    Cal. R. 2.255

    (a)Right to contract (1) A court may contract with one or more electronic filing service providers to furnish and maintain an electronic filing system for the court. (2) If the court contracts with an electronic filing service provider, it may require electronic filers to transmit the documents to the provider. (3) A court may contract with one or more electronic filing managers to act as an intermediary between the court and electronic filing service providers. (4) If the court contracts with an