Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B146328
|
Saakyan v. Modern Auto Inc.
Statutory offer to compromise is not extinguished by judgment that is vacated by subsequent order for new trial. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 29, 2003 | |
B152449
|
People v. Superior Court (Maria Plascencia, $68,317).
Jury trial is required to determine whether plaintiff has standing to challenge forfeiture proceedings. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 29, 2003 | |
00-17369
|
Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara
Heightened pleading standard of improper motive does not apply to constitutional tort claims against individual officers. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
00-17374
|
Motorola Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
Freight carrier may be liable for entire weight of cargo when damaged portion affected value of whole shipment. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
00-56446
|
Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Bank owned by Iranian government is not liable for default judgment entered against Iranian state. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-55639
|
Four Pillars Enterprises Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
Magistrate didn't abuse discretion by denying petitioner's discovery request on ground that protective order of Ohio federal court would be frustrated. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-55630
|
California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects Inc.
Cities' motion to intervene in toxic cleanup settlement under CERCLA was untimely. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
00-36033
|
Sain v. City of Bend
When underlying cause of action is federal, statute of limitations under federal rules apply. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-15939
|
San Francisco BayKeeper Inc. v. Tosco Corp.
Citizen's lawsuit under Clean Water Act may proceed if it has reasonably specific notice of alleged violations. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-16310
|
Thomas v. Nakatani
Denial of state's motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds is appealable under collateral order doctrine. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-56150
|
Lawson v. City of Santa Barbara
Capable-of-repetition doctrine does not apply to case where plaintiff has sufficient time to litigate dispute and exhaust appeals process. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
02-55367
|
Coaltion of Clergy, Lawyers and Professors v. Bush
Coalition of clergy and professors lacks standing to seek release of detainees from Afghanistan. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
01-15387
|
Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc.
Action against tobacco industry alleging addictive qualities of nicotine were fraudulently concealed is barred by limitations period. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 15, 2003 | |
00-56141
|
O'Connor v. Crilley
In hazardous substances litigation, CERCLA's federal commencement rule will apply to plaintiff's state tort claims. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 14, 2003 | |
01-55032
|
Porter v. Board of Trustees of Manhattan Beach Unified School District
Parents of disabled student were not required to exhaust state complaint procedures before suing school district. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 9, 2003 | |
B147937
|
Gallimore v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
Motion to strike complaint under anti-SLAPP statute was improperly granted. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 7, 2003 | |
C034127
|
Marin Healthcare District v. Sutter Health
'Hoadley' rule will not bar application of statute of limitations in action by state seeking to void lease and asset transfer agreement. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 7, 2003 | |
B154372
|
Choy v. Redland Insurance Co.
State court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether defendant in civil suit filed for bankruptcy in bad faith. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 7, 2003 | |
G029720
|
Bias v. Wright
Acceptance notice of offer to compromise that imposed added condition regarding parties' costs does not constitute required proof of acceptance. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 7, 2003 | |
B156183
|
Magness Petroleum Co. v. Warren Resources of California Inc.
Oral modification of written agreement to arbitrate future disputes before particular arbitrator is not enforceable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 7, 2003 | |
B152997
|
Wozniak v. Lucutz
Plaintiff may not rely upon ambiguity in own pleading to obtain better judgment at new trial. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 30, 2002 | |
01-35472
|
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman
Court abused discretion in granting preliminary injunction against implementation of 'Roadless Rule.' |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 25, 2002 | |
B144465
|
Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic Inc.
Because covenant not to compete is contrary to public policy and California action brought first, dispute should be litigated in California. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 20, 2002 | |
02-55030
|
Fontana Empire Center LLC v. City of Fontana
Federal court had jurisdiction to review state court's decision in foreclosure case. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 16, 2002 | |
01-800
|
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Arbitrator, rather than court, must decide whether dispute satisfies time-limit rule of National Association of Securities Dealers. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 16, 2002 | |
99-1320
|
Reynolds v. Howsam
Court errs in concluding that parties 'clearly and unmistakably' agreed to allow arbitrator rather than courts to decide dispute is arbitrable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 10, 2002 | |
B149998
|
Humphrey v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court ( People)
Superior court's appellate division errs in certifying decision for publication and in issuing search warrant pursuant to declaration based on information and belief. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 9, 2002 | |
99-36115
|
In re Ford Motor Co.
Amount in controversy does not satisfy federal court jurisdiction because consolidated plaintiffs lack 'undivided and common interests'. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 9, 2002 | |
B147327
|
White v. Lieberman
Statute of limitations to file malicious prosecution lawsuit begins to run on date appellate court issues remittitur. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 4, 2002 | |
B155411
|
City of Hope v. Bryan Cave
Parties who are not intended beneficiaries of settlement agreements may not compel arbitration pursuant to underlying employment contracts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 3, 2002 |