California Court of Appeal· 5/17/2006
Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.
Citations
- 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148
- 139 Cal. App. 4th 659
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Malice cannot be established simply by a showing of the absence of probable cause.... ”
- \Malice cannot be established simply by a showing of the absence of probable cause. . . .\
- “The purpose of the UCL ‘is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.... ’ Thus, the scope of the UCL (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.
- “The purpose of the UCL ‘is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services____’ Thus, the scope of the UCL (Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq.
- “The purpose of the UCL ‘is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.... ’ Thus, the scope of the UCL (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.
- “The purpose of the UCL ‘is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.... ’ Thus, the scope of the UCL (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Duffy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2012-01-25· cited 163×
- Estate of Tucker Ex Rel. Tucker v. InterscopeNinth Circuit· 2008-02-08· cited 150×
- Neville v. CHUDACOFFCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2008-03-12· cited 146×
- Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2007-06-18· cited 128×
- Salma v. CaponCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2008-04-09· cited 121×
- Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A.California Court of Appeal· 2017-03-13· cited 103×
- Paiva v. NicholsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2008-11-26· cited 93×
- Maughan v. GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY, INC.California Court of Appeal· 2006-10-11· cited 71×
- Cholakyan v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLCC.D. California· 2011-06-30· cited 69×
- Comstock v. AberCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-12-18· cited 64×
- Tichinin v. City of Morgan HillCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2009-09-21· cited 63×
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.C.D. California· 2012-01-06· cited 62×
- Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2013-10-16· cited 60×
- Fidelity National Title Insurance v. SchroederCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2009-11-24· cited 51×
- Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2010-05-03· cited 49×
- Ross v. KishCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-11-28· cited 47×
- Asghari v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.C.D. California· 2013-11-04· cited 46×
- San Diegans for Open Gov't v. San Diego State Univ. Research Found.California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2017-05-03· cited 44×
- Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.C.D. California· 2013-05-13· cited 44×
- Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2018-01-29· cited 40×
Cites
74 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court· 1999-04-08· cited 1,311×
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 1,129×
- Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-07-30· cited 1,052×
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-02-26· cited 949×
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 935×
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court· 2003-03-03· cited 855×
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1982-06-17· cited 754×
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 719×
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court· 1999-01-21· cited 692×
- Rusheen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2006-02-23· cited 607×
- Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1987-10-29· cited 599×
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court· 2003-08-18· cited 532×
- Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1988-08-18· cited 475×
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1989-01-12· cited 472×
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court· 1974-12-10· cited 472×
- Wilson v. Parker, Covert & ChidesterCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-01· cited 405×
- Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.California Supreme Court· 1972-05-10· cited 404×
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc.California Supreme Court· 2002-05-02· cited 394×
- Albertson v. RaboffCalifornia Supreme Court· 1956-04-10· cited 360×
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-11-15· cited 348×
Other cases named Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.