Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Giacometti v. Aulla, LLCgreen2 sentences2013(See Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1137-1138 [concluding that an accounting firm does not have a duty of care to its client's employees when hired to prepare W-2 wage and tax statements for the client]; Weseloh Family Ltd. 2013(See Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1137-1138 [concluding that an accounting firm does not have a duty of care to its client's employees when hired to prepare W-2 wage and tax statements for the client]; Weseloh Family Ltd. | 2 | 2 |
Blank v. Kirwangreen2 sentences2023(American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 (Stroh) [“[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered”]; Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318 [burden of proving possibility of amendment is squarely on plaintiff]; Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [plaintiff “must show . . .how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”].) In sum, we conclude the Biakanja and Bily factors do not support imposing a duty of care here. 2023(American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 (Stroh) [“[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered”]; Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318 [burden of proving possibility of amendment is squarely on plaintiff]; Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [plaintiff “must show . . .how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”].) In sum, we conclude the Biakanja and Bily factors do not support imposing a duty of care here. | 1 | 1 |
American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Strohgreen1 sentence2023(American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 (Stroh) [“[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered”]; Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318 [burden of proving possibility of amendment is squarely on plaintiff]; Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [plaintiff “must show . . .how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”].) In sum, we conclude the Biakanja and Bily factors do not support imposing a duty of care here. | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2023(American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 (Stroh) [“[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered”]; Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318 [burden of proving possibility of amendment is squarely on plaintiff]; Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [plaintiff “must show . . .how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”].) In sum, we conclude the Biakanja and Bily factors do not support imposing a duty of care here. | 1 | 1 |
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.green2 sentences2010(Id. at p. 1443.) The court determined that the Bily analysis did not apply because the accountant’s role was “not ‘secondary,’ but primary.” (Nutmeg Securities, at p. 1443.) Also, in OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 857 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 ], the court held that the defendant was liable to investment funds on a theory of negligent misrepresentation in connection with the issuance and sale of promissory notes. 2010(Id. at p. 1443.) The court determined that the Bily analysis did not apply because the accountant’s role was “not ‘secondary,’ but primary.” (Nutmeg Securities, at p. 1443.) Also, in OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 857 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 ], the court held that the defendant was liable to investment funds on a theory of negligent misrepresentation in connection with the issuance and sale of promissory notes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.
green
2 sentences2023If, instead, third parties are simply 7 To the extent the parties use the term “Bily factors” to mean the Biakanja factors (or some combination of the Biakanja and Bily factors), we decline to follow suit and instead distinguish between the factors as applicable for our analysis. 16 permitted to recover from the auditor for mistakes in the client’s financial statements, the auditor becomes, in effect, an insurer of not only the financial statements, but of bad loans and investments in general.” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 403 .) These principles squarely apply to subsequent purchasers of for 2013The Bily factors i. The possibility that liability might be imposed out of all proportion to fault The Bily court determined that imposing a duty under the scenario presented in that case could have vastly expanded the number of possible plaintiffs and the types of 24 claims against the auditor, thereby "rais[ing] the spectre of multibillion-dollar professional liability that [wa]s distinctly out of proportion to" the auditor's fault and the connection between the auditor's conduct and the investors' injury (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 402 ). | 5 | 1999–2023 |
Mintz v. Blue Cross of California
green
2 sentences2013(See Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 644 ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 .) We consider these factors in turn. a. 2013(See Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 644 ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 .) We consider these factors in turn. a. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Aas v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences2013(See Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 644 ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 .) We consider these factors in turn. a. 2013(See Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 644 ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 .) We consider these factors in turn. a. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2014Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 364 , the Court of Appeal referred to the Bily factors as "three policy concerns that had to be considered before a duty could be found under the Biakanja factors: (1) liability may in particular cases be out of proportion to fault, (2) parties should be encouraged to rely on their own ability to protect themselves through their own prudence, diligence and contracting power, and (3) the potential adverse impact on the class of defendants upon whom the duty is imposed." 37 (3) any moral blame implicated by [defendants'] conduct; or (4) how, by imposing expanded li 2014Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 364 , the Court of Appeal referred to the Bily factors as "three policy concerns that had to be considered before a duty could be found under the Biakanja factors: (1) liability may in particular cases be out of proportion to fault, (2) parties should be encouraged to rely on their own ability to protect themselves through their own prudence, diligence and contracting power, and (3) the potential adverse impact on the class of defendants upon whom the duty is imposed." 37 (3) any moral blame implicated by [defendants'] conduct; or (4) how, by imposing expanded li | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Adelman v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2014Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 364 , the Court of Appeal referred to the Bily factors as "three policy concerns that had to be considered before a duty could be found under the Biakanja factors: (1) liability may in particular cases be out of proportion to fault, (2) parties should be encouraged to rely on their own ability to protect themselves through their own prudence, diligence and contracting power, and (3) the potential adverse impact on the class of defendants upon whom the duty is imposed." 37 (3) any moral blame implicated by [defendants'] conduct; or (4) how, by imposing expanded li 2014Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 364 , the Court of Appeal referred to the Bily factors as "three policy concerns that had to be considered before a duty could be found under the Biakanja factors: (1) liability may in particular cases be out of proportion to fault, (2) parties should be encouraged to rely on their own ability to protect themselves through their own prudence, diligence and contracting power, and (3) the potential adverse impact on the class of defendants upon whom the duty is imposed." 37 (3) any moral blame implicated by [defendants'] conduct; or (4) how, by imposing expanded li | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bfgc Architects Planners v. forcum/mackey
green
2 sentences2004Even if we subtract $3,600,000 (the sum of the above stated settlement amounts) from $6,000,000, Randle and Owen would still face significant liability ($2,400,000) to the Weseloh plaintiffs alone. 6 We ordered the parties to be prepared to discuss at oral argument the impact of BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 848 on this appeal. 2004Even if we subtract $3,600,000 (the sum of the above stated settlement amounts) from $6,000,000, Randle and Owen would still face significant liability ($2,400,000) to the Weseloh plaintiffs alone. 6 We ordered the parties to be prepared to discuss at oral argument the impact of BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 848 on this appeal. | 1 | 2004–2004 |