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 2 courts 1968–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Connollygreen2 sentences1997On this record, the trial court did not "exceed[] the bounds of reason" in denying Continental's motion. ( In re Marriage of Connolly (1979) 23 Cal.3d 590, 598 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 423 , 591 P.2d 911 ].) It follows the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. 1997On this record, the trial court did not "exceed[] the bounds of reason" in denying Continental's motion. ( In re Marriage of Connolly (1979) 23 Cal.3d 590, 598 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 423 , 591 P.2d 911 ].) It follows the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Flahertygreen2 sentences2008We deny Continental’s motion. “ ‘Free access to the courts is an important and valuable aspect of an effective system of jurisprudence, and a party possessing a colorable claim must be allowed to assert it without fear of suffering a penalty more severe than that typically imposed on defeated parties.’ ” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 648 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ] (Flaherty).) Nevertheless, California courts are authorized to impose sanctions against a party or counsel when he or she has abused the right of free access by prosecuting a frivolous appeal. 2008We deny Continental’s motion. “ ‘Free access to the courts is an important and valuable aspect of an effective system of jurisprudence, and a party possessing a colorable claim must be allowed to assert it without fear of suffering a penalty more severe than that typically imposed on defeated parties.’ ” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 648 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ] (Flaherty).) Nevertheless, California courts are authorized to impose sanctions against a party or counsel when he or she has abused the right of free access by prosecuting a frivolous appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Flait v. North American Watch Corp.green2 sentences2008The "because of" language in section 12945.2, subdivision ( l ) requires only proof of a causal connection between the employee's protected status or conduct and the adverse employment action taken by the employer. ( Dudley v. Department of Transportation, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 261 [CFRA retaliation claim]; see also Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 478 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522 ] [FEHA retaliation claim].) Continental does not dispute that it assessed two recordable absences against plaintiff for missed work due to his hospitalization and recovery. 2008The "because of" language in section 12945.2, subdivision ( l ) requires only proof of a causal connection between the employee's protected status or conduct and the adverse employment action taken by the employer. ( Dudley v. Department of Transportation, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 261 [CFRA retaliation claim]; see also Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 478 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522 ] [FEHA retaliation claim].) Continental does not dispute that it assessed two recordable absences against plaintiff for missed work due to his hospitalization and recovery. | 1 | 1 |
Diaz v. Federal Express Corp.green1 sentence2008(See Diaz v. Federal Express Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2005) 373 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1046-1048 [temporary, nonchronic conditions may be disabilities under FEHA].) [6] Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). [7] On appeal, plaintiff also relies on evidence of his statements to coworkers; his posttermination statements to Bellamy, Johnson and the review board; and his posttermination letter to Judy Tanes to argue that triable issues precluded summary judgment on his failure-to-accommodate claim. | 1 | 1 |
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Douglas Aircraft Co.green2 sentences1989However, Douglas’s assertion, that Continental’s claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the exculpatory clause of the contract, is bolstered by the erroneous holding of Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 936 , in which the federal court, construing an almost identical exculpatory clause, declared that “[w]here there has been no violation of law, negligent misrepresentations in a commercial transaction such as that involved herein do not fall within the provisions of § 1668.” (Id. at p. 940.) The cases on which the Tokio Marine court relied 1989However, Douglas’s assertion, that Continental’s claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the exculpatory clause of the contract, is bolstered by the erroneous holding of Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 936 , in which the federal court, construing an almost identical exculpatory clause, declared that “[w]here there has been no violation of law, negligent misrepresentations in a commercial transaction such as that involved herein do not fall within the provisions of § 1668.” (Id. at p. 940.) The cases on which the Tokio Marine court relied | 1 | 1 |
Werner v. Knollgreen2 sentences1989However, Douglas’s assertion, that Continental’s claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the exculpatory clause of the contract, is bolstered by the erroneous holding of Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 936 , in which the federal court, construing an almost identical exculpatory clause, declared that “[w]here there has been no violation of law, negligent misrepresentations in a commercial transaction such as that involved herein do not fall within the provisions of § 1668.” (Id. at p. 940.) The cases on which the Tokio Marine court relied 1989However, Douglas’s assertion, that Continental’s claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the exculpatory clause of the contract, is bolstered by the erroneous holding of Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 936 , in which the federal court, construing an almost identical exculpatory clause, declared that “[w]here there has been no violation of law, negligent misrepresentations in a commercial transaction such as that involved herein do not fall within the provisions of § 1668.” (Id. at p. 940.) The cases on which the Tokio Marine court relied | 1 | 1 |
Isthmian Steamship Co. v. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'ngreen2 sentences1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a 1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Civil Service Employees Insurancegreen2 sentences1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea 1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea | 1 | 1 |
Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Uniongreen2 sentences1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a 1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a | 1 | 1 |
Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savagegreen2 sentences1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a 1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a | 1 | 1 |
Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blindgreen2 sentences1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea 1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Andersongreen2 sentences1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea 1968Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 381, 383, fn. 1 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 369 P.2d 262 ] ; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 540, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ] ; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].) [4] 4In his declaration in opposition to Continental’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of liis own motion for a preliminary injunction, Katz states that before Continental enlarged its bakery and thus eliminated its former driveway on its own property, Continental had not used the ea | 1 | 1 |
Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Uniongreen2 sentences1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a 1968Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 409 P.2d 949 ] ; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249 ] ; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 18 , 353 P.2d 730 ] ; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) 13 Katz ’ cross-complaint' a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. ACCREDITED SUR. & CAS. CO., INC.
green
2 sentences2015Continental does not point to any evidence that the jailers intentionally gave Continental a false name. “[T]he State does not owe the bail bond surety a duty of disclosure in the absence of active concealment or misrepresentation or a showing that the State had exclusive knowledge of facts that were not known to or reasonably discoverable by the surety.” (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 .) Continental does not direct our attention to any evidence of “active concealment by the State or any showing that the State had ‘sole knowledge or access to [the 2015(People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 6 .) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
green
1 sentence2015(Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383 ; Blevin v. Coastal Surgical Institute (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1330 .) We will “indulge all presumptions in favor of its correctness.” (Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1338 .) “In keeping with that standard, we will infer findings in support of the judgment if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) The appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Chino v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2015“In the usual case, the lack of a reporter’s transcript does preclude arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence: ‘The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (City of Chino v. Jackson (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 377, 385 .) “Where the appellant fails to provide a reporter’s transcript, ‘it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.’ [Citations.] ‘Failure to provide an adequate reco | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Colonial American Casualty & Surety Co.
green
1 sentence2015There is nothing in the record before us to support Continental’s claim that “the proper identification [of the defendant] was crucial to the decision to provide bail.”15 Having forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in its 14 While “a new theory raising a pure question of law on undisputed facts can be raised for the first time on appeal” (Fort Bragg Unified School Dist. v. Colonial American Casualty & Surety Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 891, 907 ), Continental’s new theory is a factual one to which the People did not have the opportunity to respond or present evidence below. 15 Nor has | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Blevin v. Coastal Surgical Institute
green
1 sentence2015(Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383 ; Blevin v. Coastal Surgical Institute (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1330 .) We will “indulge all presumptions in favor of its correctness.” (Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1338 .) “In keeping with that standard, we will infer findings in support of the judgment if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) The appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ruelas v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015(Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383 ; Blevin v. Coastal Surgical Institute (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1330 .) We will “indulge all presumptions in favor of its correctness.” (Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1338 .) “In keeping with that standard, we will infer findings in support of the judgment if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) The appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2008The record is insufficient for us to evaluate Continental's claim, and it is unnecessary for us to do so to resolve plaintiff's appeal. [4] Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 610 P.2d 1330 ]. [5] For purposes of this appeal, Continental does not dispute that plaintiff's bout of pancreatitis was a physical disability within the meaning of FEHA. 2008The record is insufficient for us to evaluate Continental's claim, and it is unnecessary for us to do so to resolve plaintiff's appeal. [4] Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 610 P.2d 1330 ]. [5] For purposes of this appeal, Continental does not dispute that plaintiff's bout of pancreatitis was a physical disability within the meaning of FEHA. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Vandenberg v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001The trial court agreed with Paragon, denied Continental’s motion for summary judgment and granted Paragon’s motion for summary adjudication. *437 Citing Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 ] (Vandenberg) and AIU Ins. 2001The trial court agreed with Paragon, denied Continental’s motion for summary judgment and granted Paragon’s motion for summary adjudication. *437 Citing Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 ] (Vandenberg) and AIU Ins. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
AIU Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ] (AIU), the trial court held that coverage obligations may arise from contractual obligations and that a legal obligation to pay may arise from a cause of action asserting equitable relief (e.g., an action for declaratory relief or for partnership dissolution and accounting). 2001Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ] (AIU), the trial court held that coverage obligations may arise from contractual obligations and that a legal obligation to pay may arise from a cause of action asserting equitable relief (e.g., an action for declaratory relief or for partnership dissolution and accounting). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
cluster 375908
green
1 sentence1989However, Douglas’s assertion, that Continental’s claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the exculpatory clause of the contract, is bolstered by the erroneous holding of Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 936 , in which the federal court, construing an almost identical exculpatory clause, declared that “[w]here there has been no violation of law, negligent misrepresentations in a commercial transaction such as that involved herein do not fall within the provisions of § 1668.” (Id. at p. 940.) The cases on which the Tokio Marine court relied | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.