Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order, insofar as it sustained Rykoff's demurrers to Lazar's causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and to enter a new order ...
PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, adjudging petitioner in contempt for refusing to make payments as directed by a final decree of divorce. I.L. Harris, Judge. Order affirmed. Grover O'Connor for Petitioner. Eric J. Robertson for Respondents.
29 Ιαν 1996 · The Court of Appeal concluded the allegations of the plaintiff in this case are adequate to state such a cause of action. For the reasons that follow, we agree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
12 Μαρ 2014 · Plaintiffs failed to allege adequately that Apple misrepresented the conditions under which the iPad would operate or that they justifiably could rely on those representations in believing that the iPad would operate as they expected.
Misrepresentation of the financial health of the company, Lazar v. Superior Court (Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.) (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631; Misrepresentation to induce employee to take job and move: systems in place and operational; the company was providing customer service and the company had a corporate endorsement Seubert v.
29 Ιαν 1996 · Based on these allegations, Lazar set forth causes of action for: (1) violation of Labor Code section 970 (false representations to induce relocation), (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) fraud and deceit, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach of contract, (6) promissory estoppel, (7) intentional infliction of ...
“Because this matter comes to us after the trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer, ‘we must, under established principles, assume the truth of all properly pleaded material allegations of the complaint in evaluating the validity’ of the decision below.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 635.)
