Legal Opinion

Rodriguez v. Oto

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 15, 2013No. H036865PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUSHING, P. J.

We address in this case the question of how much evidence a defendant must present to establish a right to summary judgment under a global release by the plaintiff of “all persons” exposed to Lability for his personal injuries. Plaintiff contends that the trial court here erred by granting summary judgment because defendant relied solely upon the language of the release. According to plaintiff, a defendant in such a case must present additional evidence, extrinsic to the written agreement, of the parties’ “actual intent to benefit the third party.” We have concluded that…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Winet v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Murphy v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Hess v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood ApartmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Knapp v. DohertyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2018
  3. Iqbal v. ZiadehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API