Loeb v. Kimmerle

1 Citing brief

  1. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

    Filed May 17, 2004

    Dist. v. Pasadena Fed’n of Teachers, 72 Cal. App. 3d 100, 113 (1977) (“The rule as stated in the Restatement is clearly the law of California.”) (citing Loeb v. Kimmerle, 215 Cal. 143, 150-51 (1932)), disapproved on other grounds in City and County of San Francisco v. United Ass’n of Journeymen, 42 Cal. 3d 810 (1986) and County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees’ Ass’n, 38 Cal. 3d 564 (1985); See also, Howard v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 4th 745, 748-749 (1992) (“[A]iding-abetting focuses on whether a defendant knowingly gave ‘substantial assistance’ to someone who performed wrongful conduct, not on whether the defendant agreed to join the wrongful conduct.”) (quotations omitted).