Legal Opinion
Looney v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 10, 1993No. B073886PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
In this proceeding, petitioners 1 seek a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of their motion, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, subdivision (a),* 2 for leave to amend their complaints to allege claims for punitive damages against the Medical Center of North Hollywood, Valentine Birds, M.D., and Stephen Herman, M.D. (hereinafter collectively the defendants). 3 Petitioners allege claims for both medical negligence and fraud in the treatment of their conditions. The trial court denied their motion because it was…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Wilcox v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Robertson v. RodriguezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.