Hart v. Keenan Props., Inc., No. A152692 (D1d5 Nov. 19, 2018)
The trial in this asbestos case presented a classic product ID question: Was the Defendant the distributor of asbestos-containing pipe product that Plaintiff used on jobs where he worked as a pipe layer? The evidence was thin. Plaintiff knew the pipes were asbestos cement pipes made by a particular manufacturer. But he didn’t know the distributor. And there were no records from the time to show that Defendant was, in fact, the distributor.
Showing posts with label party admissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label party admissions. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2018
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Public Forum Questions Under CCP § 425.16(e)(4)
Ralph’s Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc., No. D070804 (D4d1 Nov. 15, 2017)
The trial court in this case granted an anti-SLAPP motion, dismissing a case where a grocery store sued paid petition signature gathering company for trespassing when it gathered signatures right outside the entrances to two grocery stores in San Diego.
The trial court in this case granted an anti-SLAPP motion, dismissing a case where a grocery store sued paid petition signature gathering company for trespassing when it gathered signatures right outside the entrances to two grocery stores in San Diego.
Monday, August 8, 2016
On the Epistemology of an Agreement
In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, No. A134913 (D1d4 Jul. 5, 2016)
The trial court granted SJ in an antitrust case premised on an anti-competitive agreement not to import cheaper but otherwise identical cars from Canada. The appeal presents some interesting evidentiary issues.
The trial court granted SJ in an antitrust case premised on an anti-competitive agreement not to import cheaper but otherwise identical cars from Canada. The appeal presents some interesting evidentiary issues.
Monday, March 28, 2016
SJ Evidence Rulings Get De Novo Review
Pipitone v. Williams, No. H041468 (D6 Feb. 23, 2016)
The facts of this wrongful death case are complicated, but they essentially entail a husband’s killing his wife in a domestic dispute. Plaintiff is the Wife’s mother. One defendant is the husband’s father, who is also a doctor, who happened to treat the wife when she suffered an earlier injury that was later discovered to be the result of a prior incident of domestic abuse. Although the Doctor/Father/Defendant claimed not to know that at the time. The other defendant is another doctor who treated the Wife/Decedent for the same earlier injury. The trial court granted SJ on duty and causation.
The facts of this wrongful death case are complicated, but they essentially entail a husband’s killing his wife in a domestic dispute. Plaintiff is the Wife’s mother. One defendant is the husband’s father, who is also a doctor, who happened to treat the wife when she suffered an earlier injury that was later discovered to be the result of a prior incident of domestic abuse. Although the Doctor/Father/Defendant claimed not to know that at the time. The other defendant is another doctor who treated the Wife/Decedent for the same earlier injury. The trial court granted SJ on duty and causation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...