Legal Opinion

Verdugo v. Target Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 2014No. S207313PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

At the request of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we agreed to address a question of state law that is potentially determinative of an appeal now pending before that federal appellate court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548.) The question, as reformulated and narrowed to conform to the facts of the pending appeal, is whether, under California law, the common law duty of reasonable care that defendant Target Corporation (Target) owes to its business customers includes an obligation to obtain and make available on its…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Coulter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. City of Moorpark v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. The Regents of the University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Sandra L. Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist ChurchTennessee Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Abel Limones, Sr. v. School District of Lee CountySupreme Court of Florida · 2015
  5. Carlsen v. KoivumakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014

42 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