| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
S100809
|
Pavlovich v. Superior Court (DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc.)
Personal jurisdiction was improperly exercised over Texas defendant who posted an Internet website. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 5, 2003 | |
|
H024218
|
Cheek v. Superior Court (People)
Defendant convicted in multiple counties may be committed as sexually violent predator in each county. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
B158416
|
Settlemire v. Superior Court (Settlemire)
Absent consent from both parties, hearing involving domestic issues may not be referred to Commissioner. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
A091299
|
Gauss v. GAF Corp.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 cannot be used to enforce settlement signed by party's agent, instead of party itself. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
B150315
|
Stern v. Superior Court (Getz, Krycler & Jakubovits)
Trial court, without providing notice and opportunity to present opposition, erroneously ordered action reclassified as limited civil case. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
S098760
|
Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group
For purposes of attorney fees shifting, party is successful in appeal when resulting judgment is more favorable than administrative award. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
G029129
|
Kajima Engineering and Construction Inc. v. Pacific Bell
Referee serving on general reference by trial court is not required to take oath. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
C039535
|
Guillemin v. Stein
Government Code Section 6103.5 authorizes recovery of costs for filing fees when judgment is entered in favor of public officials. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
A098878
|
Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court (Martinez)
Mandatory forum selection agreement is valid unless plaintiff demonstrates enforcement would be unreasonable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Feb. 4, 2003 | |
|
A095703
|
Keitel v. Heubel
Bankruptcy case did not preclude court from imposing sanctions on debtors for filing frivolous appeal in state action. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jan. 29, 2003 | |
|
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 |